I think you are asking "Why not get everything into 2.0?"
There are currently 20 open PRs and I know I don't have time to get through
them all. That being said, there are some out there that I would like to
see make it to 2.0, so I will try to get them tested and merged in the next
couple days.

Thanks,
Dave

On Mon, Feb 20, 2017 at 7:13 PM, Eric Friedrich (efriedri) <
[email protected]> wrote:

> Any particular reason these changes don’t just go into 2.0?
>
> I think that smaller, more frequent releases pose less risk to deploy.
> Aside from that are there other reasons to keep code “in your pocket” until
> the release branch is cut?
>
> —Eric
>
> > On Feb 20, 2017, at 6:08 PM, Dave Neuman <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > I'll take a look at open PRs tomorrow and see if there is anything I want
> > to make sure gets in. Other than that I am +1
> >
> > On Mon, Feb 20, 2017 at 16:06 Mark Torluemke <[email protected]>
> wrote:
> >
> >> Agree -- I think sooner-is-better for branching 2.0.
> >>
> >> Cheers,
> >> Mark
> >>
> >> On Mon, Feb 20, 2017 at 3:57 PM, Jan van Doorn <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>
> >>> +100 !
> >>>
> >>> I really want to get some changes in to 2.1.
> >>>
> >>> Thanks,
> >>> JvD
> >>>
> >>>> On Feb 20, 2017, at 1:42 PM, Eric Friedrich <[email protected]>
> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> Hey All-
> >>>> Its about time to cut our first branch in the 2.0 series and starting
> >>>> testing release candidates.
> >>>>
> >>>> TC1.8 is not quite yet through the incubator voting process, but it
> >>> appears
> >>>> that approval is hopefully quite close. No changes have gone into 1.8
> >> in
> >>>> the past few months, so on top of the move to Postgres we have quite
> >> the
> >>>> set of changes in this upcoming release.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Unless I hear strong opinions otherwise in the next 2-3 days, I'll cut
> >>> the
> >>>> TC2.0 release branch later this week and bump the master version
> >> numbers
> >>> up
> >>>> to 2.1
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Thanks,
> >>>> Eric
> >>>> Release Manager-elect
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
>
>

Reply via email to