Thanks for keeping storm-mesos in mind Stig. :) I'd be most worried about any issues we might see with the backported storm-kafka-client and how we *might* need to fix bugs in 1.0.x. At least it should be easy to cherry-pick fixes back into 1.0.x after the backport-stomping of STORM-2937.
Look forward to working with Bobby to get a long term plan for storm to run on mesos in 2.x+. - Erik On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 11:26 AM, Stig Rohde Døssing <stigdoess...@gmail.com > wrote: > +1 to maintain 3 version lines, though we may want to look at what we can > do for storm mesos, which I think it currently stuck on 1.0.x. > > 2018-02-13 20:17 GMT+01:00 Hugo Da Cruz Louro <hlo...@hortonworks.com>: > > > +1 to maintain 3 version lines. Let’s properly announce that in our > portal > > and users list such that users know what’s coming. > > > > Agree with focusing on 2.0 which has a lot of improvements, rather than > > 1.x, x >= 3. > > > > > On Feb 13, 2018, at 10:43 AM, Alexandre Vermeerbergen < > > avermeerber...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > +1 (non binding) to maintaining less version lines, provided that > > > 1.2.x branch is maintained long enough to allow progressive adoption > > > of 2.x > > > > > > Alexandre Vermeerbergen > > > > > > 2018-02-13 19:38 GMT+01:00 Priyank Shah <ps...@hortonworks.com>: > > >> +1 to maintaining 3 version lines as suggested by Jungtaek. > > >> > > >> On 2/13/18, 9:51 AM, "Arun Iyer on behalf of Arun Mahadevan" < > > ai...@hortonworks.com on behalf of ar...@apache.org> wrote: > > >> > > >> +1 to maintain 3 version lines. > > >> > > >> I think the next focus should be 2.0.0 than 1.3.0. > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> On 2/12/18, 11:40 PM, "Jungtaek Lim" <kabh...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >> > > >>> Hi devs, > > >>> > > >>> I've noticed that we are providing 4 different version lines (1.1.x, > > 1.0.x, > > >>> 0.10.x, 0.9.x) in download page, and I expect we will add one more > for > > >>> 1.2.0. Moreover, we have one more develop version line (2.0.0 - > master) > > >>> which most of development happens there. > > >>> > > >>> Recently we're releasing 3 version lines (1.0.6 / 1.1.2 / 1.2.0) > > >>> simultaneously and it took heavy effort to track all the RCs and > > verify all > > >>> of them. I guess release manager would take more overhead of > > releasing, and > > >>> it doesn't make sense for me if we continue maintaining all of them. > > >>> > > >>> Ideally I'd like to propose maintaining three version lines: 2.0.0 > > (next > > >>> major) / 1.3.0 (next minor - may not happen) / 1.2.1 (next bugfix) > and > > >>> making others EOL (that respects semantic versioning and even other > > >>> projects tend to maintain only two version lines), but if someone > > feels too > > >>> aggressive, I propose at least we explicitly announce EOL to 0.x > > version > > >>> lines and get rid of any supports (downloads) for them. > > >>> > > >>> Would like to hear your opinion. > > >>> > > >>> Thanks, > > >>> Jungtaek Lim (HeartSaVioR) > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > >
