FYI: I've just pushed 1.0.x-branch, so we have 1.x-branch for releasing minor versions and 1.x.y-branch (1.0.x-branch for now) for releasing bugfix versions. If you think there's a better branch name policy please let us know so that we can reflect it.
2016년 5월 10일 (화) 오전 10:23, Jungtaek Lim <[email protected]>님이 작성: > What I really wanted to address is, I don't want to see us making effort > with questioning/deciding this bug should be port back to 0.x, and do > actual work by hand (since we change the package name) for each pull > request. There will be three branches to concern, and since master and 1.x > are diverged so addressing bugfixes and new features are not easy even > without 0.x. > > If dropping 0.x lines feels too strong and restricted, we could also open > the possibility of adoption when pull requests are on 0.10.x so we don't > need to port back at all. In other words, I'm also +1 to keep 0.10.x branch > without considering backport. > > 2016년 5월 10일 (화) 오전 8:30, P. Taylor Goetz <[email protected]>님이 작성: > >> 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 >> >>>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >> >
