And i think issues with tagged version is totally make sense for Zeppelin.
FYI, here's list of open issues that tagged with 0.5.0

https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ZEPPELIN-108?jql=project%20%3D%20ZEPPELIN%20AND%20status%20in%20(Open%2C%20%22In%20Progress%22%2C%20Reopened)%20AND%20fixVersion%20%3D%20%220.5.0%22

Once release branch is being created, issue that brings possible code
conflict between master and release branch is only ZEPPELIN-97, ZEPPELIN-79
and ZEPPELIN-18, which is i think totally manageable.
So, I'm proceeding creating a release branch.

Thanks,
moon

On Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at 10:18 PM moon soo Lee <[email protected]> wrote:

> Hi Roman, Thanks for the feedback.
>
> About the release policy, at the moment, I'd like to say it's a
> feature-driven approach. Because, we have roadmap with features but without
> timeline set.
>
> Thanks,
> moon
>
> On Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at 4:44 PM Roman Shaposhnik <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, Jun 14, 2015 at 4:47 PM, Alexander Bezzubov
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>> > Hey Moon, mentors and fellow PPMCs,
>> >
>> > as soon as we all agree that the roadmap on the wiki looks awesome,
>> shall
>> > we 'itemize' it now in the JIRA issues? (and assign to planned versions)
>> > Later sub-task can be added as needed.
>>
>> I don't think it is a mentor question really. Or at least this is not
>> something that we can teach you as a universal policy -- this
>> is more of a sharing of best practices.
>>
>> > This will increase traceability and will allow broader set of
>> contributors
>> > to basically, contribute :) like taking an issue and start working on
>> it by
>> > proposing the solution, review, etc.
>> >
>> > Please, let me know what you guys think!
>>
>> Personally I'm a big believer in JIRAs being tagged with versions of the
>> next releases. That said, I think the first question that you may want
>> to answer is this: what's your release policy? Are you a feature-driven
>> or a date driven project when it comes to new releases?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Roman.
>>
>

Reply via email to