It seems to me having a version that is 2+ is good for that? Once we move to 2.0, we can retag those that are not going to be fixed in 2.0 as 2.0.1 or 2.1.0 .
On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 12:42 AM, Sean Owen <so...@cloudera.com> wrote: > Patrick and I were chatting about how to handle several issues which > clearly need a fix, and are easy, but can't be implemented until a > next major release like Spark 2.x since it would change APIs. > Examples: > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SPARK-3266 > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SPARK-3369 > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SPARK-4819 > > We could simply make version 2.0.0 in JIRA. Although straightforward, > it might imply that release planning has begun for 2.0.0. > > The version could be called "2+" for now to better indicate its status. > > There is also a "Later" JIRA resolution. Although resolving the above > seems a little wrong, it might be reasonable if we're sure to revisit > "Later", well, at some well defined later. The three issues above risk > getting lost in the shuffle. > > We also wondered whether using "Later" is good or bad. It takes items > off the radar that aren't going to be acted on anytime soon -- and > there are lots of those right now. It might send a message that these > will be revisited when they are even less likely to if resolved. > > Any opinions? > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@spark.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@spark.apache.org > >
