I agree with Bobby, and Taylor. Only thing I'd like to point out is, since we're labeling issue (and modifying CHANGELOG.md) to next version, so we may always need to have next versions of all branch lines. For example, we may be better to know previously that next version of 0.10.x branch line is 0.10.0 (not 0.10.0-beta2), and it will be changed only when we agree about changing release version.
I'll apply these changes (with Dan's change) to 0.10.0, and modify CHANGELOG.md. Thanks! Best, Jungtaek Lim (HeartSaVioR) 2015년 7월 8일 수요일, P. Taylor Goetz<[email protected]>님이 작성한 메시지: > I agree. It would be good to reserve the 0.9.x line for bug fixes only, > and changes 0.10.0 should be somewhat limited to minor improvements and bug > fixes. The focus for removing the “beta” label for 0.10.0 should be > stabilization rather than new features. That being said, it is not a hard > rule. I’m open to pulling anything in as long as there is PMC/dev community > consensus. > > I’m also fine with pulling in Dan’s change to 0.10.x. > > -Taylor > > > On Jul 7, 2015, at 10:24 AM, Bobby Evans <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > I personally am fine with pulling in Dan's change to 0.10.x. From a > documentation perspective I think we need to come to a consensus on how we > want to manage releases. In other projects I have worked on there is a > release manager that is approved for a given release line. They are the > gate keeper for what does and does not go in. I think we are small enough > that we can forgo with that formality so long as we are in agreement. From > my perspective 0.9.x is stable and closed to new features, only bug fixes > will go in there. 0.10.x is still in beta and I am fine with small > improvements that were missed going in, but primarily bug fixes. Master is > open for new features. In general if something goes into a previous > release line, it also needs to go into all higher numbered active lines. > Also in general even though master is open to new features and it is a > different version number we should avoid making changes that break binary > compatibility. That is not to say that it is forbidden, it is to say that > if we can make the change without breaking compatibility we should. > > If we get to the point where there is conflict about what should go into > a given release then we can revisit the bylaws at that point and resolve > the issue. we already have rules about how to merge in code. It does not > specify which branch that code goes into. If you want to change the > version number to 0.10.0 from 0.10.0-beta1 lets get the last of the missed > features in and make the switch. > > - Bobby > > > > > > > > On Monday, July 6, 2015 11:40 PM, 임정택 <[email protected] > <javascript:;>> wrote: > > > > > > Hi Bobby! Thanks for answering. :) > > > > Yes, I also think we need to keep 0.10.0's features as same, and accept > > only bugfix. > > > > First one is about documentation, so that I can feel that it's safe to > > merge to frozen branch. > > Second one is about bugfix introduced on 0.10.0-beta, so it should be > > merged to 0.10.x-branch. > > > > For now, I'd like to name version to 0.10.0. > > When we have different opinion, we can change CHANGELOG.md and relevant > > JIRA issues. > > > > Next thing I'm wondering is "omitting functionality from already > introduced > > feature". > > Dan Blanchard said he omitted one thing which he actually wanted, see > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-789?focusedCommentId=14615630&page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel#comment-14615630 > > . > > In this case, does Dan need to wait for 0.11.0 to add missed thing? > > > > Thanks, > > Jungtaek Lim (HeartSaVioR) > > > > > > 2015-07-07 1:31 GMT+09:00 Bobby Evans <[email protected]>: > > > >> I thought that 0.10.0 is now bug fix only, unless Taylor has a different > >> opinion. Once we feel that it is stable then we can drop the beta. > >> - Bobby > >> > >> > >> > >> On Tuesday, June 30, 2015 5:03 PM, 임정택 <[email protected] > <javascript:;>> wrote: > >> > >> > >> Hi! > >> > >> Since I started reviewing and merging PRs, there're some PRs which are > >> suitable to master, and also 0.10.0. > >> (STORM-843 <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-843>, STORM-866 > >> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-866>) > >> > >> We didn't define next step of Storm 0.10.0 beta, so I cannot merge them > >> into 0.10.x-branch. > >> > >> Maybe two questions have to be answered before merging into > 0.10.x-branch. > >> > >> 1. What's the next version of 0.10.0-beta1? beta2 or stable? > >> 2. Will Taylor handle them, or it is at the discretion of the Committer? > >> > >> For now I merged them into master only. > >> > >> If topic was discussed, please let me know so that I can find the > result. > >> > >> Thanks, > >> Jungtaek Lim (HeartSaVioR) > >> > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > -- > > Name : 임 정택 > > Blog : http://www.heartsavior.net / http://dev.heartsavior.net > > Twitter : http://twitter.com/heartsavior > > LinkedIn : http://www.linkedin.com/in/heartsavior > > > > -- Name : 임 정택 Blog : http://www.heartsavior.net / http://dev.heartsavior.net Twitter : http://twitter.com/heartsavior LinkedIn : http://www.linkedin.com/in/heartsavior
