The 0.8 fixes for licensing remove a processor (gettwitter) at this point. That I feel requires at least minor. But avoiding that for now and doing the bug fix things and doing 073 seems legit.
Will wait and see if anyone else has a different interpretation on the intent of our one year version guidance and then update the wiki if appears we have consensus. Thanks Joe On Feb 24, 2017 7:19 PM, "Andy LoPresto" <alopre...@apache.org> wrote: > Especially as nothing that would be going into the 0.x release is a major > feature or changes compatibility (from my understanding), I would +1 the > 0.7.3 suggestion. > > Andy LoPresto > alopre...@apache.org > *alopresto.apa...@gmail.com <alopresto.apa...@gmail.com>* > PGP Fingerprint: 70EC B3E5 98A6 5A3F D3C4 BACE 3C6E F65B 2F7D EF69 > > On Feb 24, 2017, at 2:07 PM, Tony Kurc <trk...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I think it is probably worth clarifying the intent of the support language. > I believe the intent was to support 0.x for a year after 1.x was released. > That was how I initially read the document you mentioned. But after a > re-read, I'd echo your concerns about dragging old major lines along. > > Tony > > On Fri, Feb 24, 2017 at 4:12 PM, Joe Witt <joe.w...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Brandon, > > My concern is the language used when we published this "We support the > newest major release line (0.x, 1.x) and any previous major release > lines for up to one year since the last minor release (0.6.x, 1.5.y) > in that line" within this document [1]. > > If I read that now it seems like we're saying "if we make a minor > release we're going to support that for up to a year" and so each time > we create a new minor line on a given major line it means we are > resetting the clock. > > I do not believe we should give old major lines, such as 0.x, the > ability to drag on the community indefinitely as that reads. I > believe it should be that we support a given major release line for up > to one year one after a new major release line is provided. > > So would like to hear peoples thoughts on that. > > If an 0.8 release is to occur the items called out are things which > impact licensing only (specifically the no longer allowed cat-x json > library). I would be far more comfortable with 0.7.3 release which > would be fixing whatever bugs have been addressed. That avoids the > concern I noted above for this case though i'd still like us to > clarify that language/intent anyway. > > Thanks > Joe > > On Fri, Feb 24, 2017 at 3:21 PM, Brandon DeVries <b...@jhu.edu> wrote: > > Team, > > The only unresolved tickets against the 0.8.0 release[1] are for the > removal of code... With that in mind, does anyone object to trying to > > push > > for this (possibly final) 0.x release? > > Brandon > > [1] > https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=project%20% > > 3D%20NIFI%20AND%20fixVersion%20%3D%200.8.0%20AND%20resolution%20%3D% > 20Unresolved%20ORDER%20BY%20due%20ASC%2C%20priority% > 20DESC%2C%20created%20ASC > > >
