Is STORM-485 the one you are referring to? Maybe create a JIRA Issue to pull it into 0.9.x branch and we can take a look.
-- Derek ----- Original Message ----- From: Tyson Norris <tnor...@adobe.com> To: "dev@storm.apache.org" <dev@storm.apache.org>; Bobby Evans <ev...@yahoo-inc.com> Cc: Derek Dagit <der...@yahoo-inc.com> Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2015 11:58 AM Subject: Re: Storm Release Branches Hi - Related to releases, would it be possible to pick this commit into the 0.9.x branch for the next release, assuming there will be a 0.9.5 before 0.10? It is a change to use a separate logback config for workers, hopefully minor, depending on how much you have customized the logback config. Thanks Tyson > On Mar 23, 2015, at 7:55 AM, Bobby Evans <ev...@yahoo-inc.com.INVALID> wrote: > > Sure that is fine with me. > - Bobby > > > > On Friday, March 20, 2015 5:02 PM, Derek Dagit <der...@yahoo-inc.com> > wrote: > > >> lets create a HA feature branch that is not tied to a release number. > I agree. This still has the other benefits. > -- > Derek > > From: Bobby Evans <ev...@yahoo-inc.com.INVALID> > To: "dev@storm.apache.org" <dev@storm.apache.org> > Sent: Friday, March 20, 2015 4:44 PM > Subject: Re: Storm Release Branches > > I don't really like this plan.0.9.x 0.10.x both sound great. > But if we call HA 0.11.x what version do we put on master? If it is 0.12 it > implies that 0.11 was released, even just as a preview, with HA and 0.12 is > potentially a regression because there is no HA yet. If it is 0.11 then that > is just really confusing. > > If we are going to have a 0.10 branch that we will continue to be supported > for stability, lets just merge HA into master. > > If we think HA is going to take longer to stabilize than the 0.11 time frame > then lets create a HA feature branch that is not tied to a release number. I > personally don't think it will take that long to stabilize HA. > - Bobby > > > > > > On Friday, March 20, 2015 4:29 PM, P. Taylor Goetz <ptgo...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > In order to allow work to continue on the master branch while we move closer > to a 0.10.0 release, I’ve created the following branches: > > 0.9.x-branch (maintenance branch) > * Should be inactive unless important fixes are discovered. > * Changes should be cherry-picked from master unless specific to 0.9.x > > 0.10.x-branch (security branch) > * Active branch for 0.10.0 release. > * Changes should be cherry-picked from master to be included in the release > (e.g. STORM-714, STORM-617) > > 0.11.x-branch (Nimbus HA branch) > * Should be up merged to master when master changes. > > > I’m not very excited about having to keep 0.11.x in sync with master, but I > think the Nimbus HA work needs as many eyes and as much testing as possible. > Having a dedicated branch will make it easier to create preview releases and > allow users to kick the tires. It will also ease some of the burden on Parth > who’s spent a lot of time keeping that work upmerged. > > If anyone has any questions, concerns or suggestions regarding branch/release > management, let me know. > > -Taylor > > > > > >
