I think we're in total agreement. I just would like to see 0.10.x remain open for bug fixes and releases. I don't think we should back port new features.
-Taylor > On May 9, 2016, at 7:06 PM, Jungtaek Lim <[email protected]> wrote: > > Taylor, > > That would be also OK with me. > What I really wanted to address is that I don't see the benefit to give > efforts to maintain 0.x version line. In other words, I don't want to > backport non-critical bugfix to 0.x version. > It should be minimized, but it would be still possible to release new 0.x > versions when we found security vulnerability or critical bugs. > Since I'm seeing the consensus between us, I think it's OK to leave them as > is, with notification to user@, or ask on user@ what Taylor suggested. > > Let's back to 1.x version lines. Do we all agree to maintain two version > lines - minor version / bugfix version? > > 2016년 5월 10일 (화) 오전 5:52, P. Taylor Goetz <[email protected]>님이 작성: > >> 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 >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >> >>
