I’m okay with discontinuing active development on 0.10.x. That being said, I don’t think we should discourage bug fixes against that branch. There will be users on those versions for a long time. I think not too long ago I saw a question from someone who was still on a pre-Apache release. :)
We may want to poll users to get an idea of where people stand on versions. Should we ask on user@? -Taylor > On May 9, 2016, at 11:21 AM, Hugo Da Cruz Louro <[email protected]> > wrote: > > +1 (non-binding) or maintaining 1.x branch as it is the base for all the > package name change and lots of new features. If we have to discontinue a > branch, I would also favor discontinuing 0.10.x . > > Hugo > >> On May 9, 2016, at 8:06 AM, Bobby Evans <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> +1 for that too. We should be on the same page here, but this is >> non-binding. The bylaws state that any PMC member can bring up a release >> for a vote. >> - Bobby >> >> On Monday, May 9, 2016 8:20 AM, Aaron. Dossett <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >> >> +1. Same here. >> >> On 5/9/16, 5:47 AM, "John Fang" <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> I'm also think we shouldn't maintain 0.10.x branch >>> >>> -----邮件原件----- >>> 发件人: Cody Innowhere [mailto:[email protected]] >>> 发送时间: 2016年5月9日 19:42 >>> 收件人: [email protected] >>> 主题: Re: [DISCUSSION] Version lines of 1.x >>> >>> I'm also +1 for maintaining 1.x branch & master and not maintaining >>> 0.10.x branch. >>> >>> On Mon, May 9, 2016 at 1:04 PM, Abhishek Agarwal <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> +1. There is lot development effort pending against 1.x branch which >>>> +will >>>> get unblocked with 1.1.0 branch. I am assuming, we will not introduce >>>> any backward incompatible changes in the new branch. But what will be >>>> the release timeline of 1.1.0? Many of the PRs affect small portion of >>>> code. >>>> Back porting these minor improvements as well as bugs into three >>>> branches will be counter productive. We might as well work with 1.0.x >>>> and keep pushing the changes there. >>>> >>>> On Mon, May 9, 2016 at 8:50 AM, Jungtaek Lim <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>>> What a coincidence! :) >>>>> >>>>> My feeling is that this issue would be another representation of >>>>> 'drop further releases of 0.x'. >>>>> >>>>> If we want to have minor and bugfix version separated, we would have >>>>> at least 3 branches, master (for 2.0), 1.1.x, 1.0.x. I'm seeing that >>>>> not all bugfixes are applied to 0.10.x when we're pointing >>>>> 1.x-branch as next release, which means even maintaining 3 branches >>>>> are not easy. (It should be addressed if we maintain two 1.x version >>>>> lines.) Moreover, package name change makes us a bit bothering to >>>>> backport into 0.10.x. >>>>> >>>>> So, I'm sorry for 0.x users but I'm in favor of not maintaining >>>>> 0.10.x branch. >>>>> I'm curious what we all think about this, too. >>>>> >>>>> 2016년 5월 9일 (월) 오전 11:10, P. Taylor Goetz <[email protected]>님이 작성: >>>>> >>>>>> Perfect timing as I was thinking about similar things. >>>>>> >>>>>> The new metrics APIs being proposed against the 1.x branch would >>>>>> be an >>>>> API >>>>>> addition, and IMO should bump the minor version when added. I'd be >>>>>> +1 >>>> for >>>>>> that. >>>>>> >>>>>> I guess it comes down to how many version branches do we want to >>>> support? >>>>>> We may need to divide and conquer to support that. >>>>>> >>>>>> -Taylor >>>>>> >>>>>>> On May 8, 2016, at 9:51 PM, Jungtaek Lim <[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Hi devs, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I have a feeling that we recently try to respect semantic >>>>>>> versioning, >>>>> at >>>>>>> least separating feature updates and bugfixes. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Recently we released 1.0.0 and 1.0.1 continuously, which was OK >>>>>>> since >>>>> it >>>>>>> addressed performance regressions and critical bugs. I'm curious >>>>>>> that >>>>> we >>>>>>> want to maintain minor version line and bugfix version line for >>>>>>> 1.x >>>>>> version >>>>>>> lines. (meaning two version lines for 1.x) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> In fact, we discussed to freeze the feature during releasing >>>>>>> 2.0.0, >>>> but >>>>>> we >>>>>>> don't have timeframe for 2.0.0 and phase 1 is not completed yet, >>>>>>> so I >>>>>> don't >>>>>>> think we can freeze developing or improving the features for 1.x >>>> lines. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> There're many pending pull requests for 1.x (and master, maybe) >>>>>>> but >>>> not >>>>>>> sure I can merge them into 1.x-branch. In order to address them >>>>>>> we >>>>> should >>>>>>> settle this. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> What do you think? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>>> Jungtaek Lim (HeartSaVioR) >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Regards, >>>> Abhishek Agarwal >>>> >>> >>> >> >> >> >
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
