Sorry I missed this thread earlier. I'm not going to worry about the water under the bridge at this point, but going forward I would like to only include those issues marked as blocker. If a new issue crops up I will be taking a closer look at it and may push back.
We've got less than 10 issues left to go :-) Cheers, Nige Sent from my iPad On Jun 2, 2011, at 11:31 AM, Todd Lipcon <[email protected]> wrote: > On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 11:06 AM, Konstantin Shvachko > <[email protected]>wrote: > >> I propose just to make them blockers before committing to attract attention >> of the release manager and get his approval. Imho, even small changes, like >> HDFS-1954 are blockers, because a vague UI message is bug and bugs are >> blockers. >> > > Bugs are blockers? Then we'll never release! > > Let's hear from Nigel what he thinks. It's his branch, if he's upset about > the way it's being handled, he can deal with it as he sees fit. > > -Todd > > >> On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 10:39 AM, Todd Lipcon <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 11:32 PM, Konstantin Shvachko >>> <[email protected]>wrote: >>> >>>> I can see them well. >>>> I think Suresh's point is that non-blockers are going into 0.22. >>>> Nigel, do you have full control over it? >>>> >>> >>> Of course it's up to Nigel to decide, but here's my personal opinion: >>> >>> One of the reasons we had a lot of divergence (read: external >>> branches/forks/whatever) off of 0.20 is that the commit rules on the >> branch >>> were held pretty strictly. So, if you wanted a non-critical bug fix or a >>> small improvement, the only option was to do such things on an external >>> fork. 0.20 was branched in December '08 and not released until mid April >>> '09. In 4 months a fair number of bug fixes and small improvements go in. >>> 0.22 has been around even longer. If we were to keep it to *only* >> blockers, >>> then again it would be a fairly useless release due to the number of >>> non-blocker bugs. >>> >>> Clearly there's a balance and a judgment call when moving things back to >> a >>> branch. But at this point I'd consider small improvements and pretty much >>> any bug fix to be reasonable, so long as it doesn't involve major >> reworking >>> of components. Nigel: if this assumption doesn't jive (ha ha, get it?) >> with >>> what you're thinking, please let me know :) >>> >>> -Todd >>> >>> >>>> On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 1:50 PM, Eric Baldeschwieler < >>> [email protected] >>>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> makes sense to me, but it might be good to work to make these >> decisions >>>>> visible so folks can understand what is happening. >>>>> >>>>> On Jun 1, 2011, at 1:46 PM, Owen O'Malley wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Jun 1, 2011, at 1:27 PM, Suresh Srinivas wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> I see that there are several non blockers being promoted to 0.22 >>> from >>>>> trunk. >>>>>>> From my understanding, any non blocker change to 0.22 should be >>>> approved >>>>> by >>>>>>> vote. Is this correct? >>>>>> >>>>>> No, the Release Manager has full control over what goes into a >>> release. >>>>> The PMC votes on it once there is a release candidate. >>>>>> >>>>>> -- Owen >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Todd Lipcon >>> Software Engineer, Cloudera >>> >> > > > > -- > Todd Lipcon > Software Engineer, Cloudera
