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)
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> >
> >
>

Reply via email to