I completely forgot to check pom.xml in 0.10.x-branch, which is "0.10.0-beta2-SNAPSHOT". I'd like to use 0.10.0-beta2 for now, and let Taylor (or PMC's consensus) take care of removing beta label.
Sorry about the confusion. Best, Jungtaek Lim (HeartSaVioR) 2015-07-08 0:46 GMT+09:00 임정택 <[email protected]>: > 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]> 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]> >> 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 > > -- Name : 임 정택 Blog : http://www.heartsavior.net / http://dev.heartsavior.net Twitter : http://twitter.com/heartsavior LinkedIn : http://www.linkedin.com/in/heartsavior
