That's awesome, Joe. So it sounds like the plan is to do a 0.7.1 release and then pursue graduation? There were a few who just wanted to go for it, any objection to waiting a bit to get this release out?
-Jay On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 10:59 AM, Joe Stein <crypt...@gmail.com> wrote: > I would be interested to drive a 0.7.1 release. > > On Jun 8, 2012, at 12:23 PM, Jun Rao <jun...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Actually, any committers outside of LinkedIn is interested in drive an > > 0.7.1 release? That will help diversifying the community. It should be > much > > easier than the 0.7.0 release since most of the licensing issues have > been > > resolved. > > > > Thanks, > > > > Jun > > > > On Wed, Jun 6, 2012 at 5:46 PM, Joel Koshy <jjkosh...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> I think an 0.7.1 release would be suitable in any case given that there > are > >> few additional features and API changes since 0.7.0 - I can drive that, > >> although an 0.7.1 release need not necessarily hold up pursuing > graduation > >> if people prefer (1). > >> > >> Joel > >> > >> On Wed, Jun 6, 2012 at 12:51 PM, Jay Kreps <jay.kr...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > >>> This is a fair point. I am not sure of the best practices on the number > >> of > >>> releases to do before graduation. The Incubator docs imply a fairly low > >>> bar: > >>> "Projects need to cut releases. Apache projects need to understand how > to > >>> cut Apache releases. Therefore it is an important step during your stay > >> in > >>> the incubator to demonstrate the ability to create an Apache Release. > >>> Podlings > >>> do not need to actually *publish* a release to demonstrate that they > >>> understand how to accomplish such a feat. However, creating a release > >> that > >>> is approved by the incubator project management > >>> committee< > >>> > >> > http://incubator.apache.org/incubation/Roles_and_Responsibilities.html#Incubator+Project+Management+Committee+%28PMC%29 > >>>> > >>> is usually the simplest way to do this." > >>> (http://incubator.apache.org/guides/graduation.html#releases) > >>> > >>> They refer to "a release" not "releases", and mention that they don't > >>> particularly care if you publish it or not. We might want to set a > higher > >>> bar for ourselves, though. > >>> > >>> We had planned on having 0.8 be the next release, and that is still a > few > >>> months out I suspect. However we did take a number of minor features > and > >>> fixes post 0.7 that are only on trunk it would probably be possible to > >> do a > >>> 0.7.1 without too much drama and that would make that work available to > >>> people in a more easily consumable form . On the other hand it would be > >>> nice to just be heads down and focus on 0.8 too. So if people agree > with > >>> Chris's feedback there are three options: > >>> > >>> 1. Pursue graduation now > >>> 2. Do a 0.7.1 release, pursue graduation when that is completed > >>> 3. Wait until 0.8 is out, pursue graduation after that > >>> > >>> Anyone have a strong preference for one of these options? > >>> > >>> -Jay > >>> > >>> On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 7:17 PM, Chris Burroughs > >>> <chris.burrou...@gmail.com>wrote: > >>> > >>>> On 2012-05-23 23:32, Alan D. Cabrera wrote: > >>>>>> We struggled a bit with licensing and packaging issues but we got > >>> those > >>>>>> issues resolved and did a release and this should be pretty easy > >> going > >>>>>> forward. > >>>> > >>>> This is the one point I am hesitant about. I think it would be > >>>> reasonable to ask us for a history of more than a single release (and > >>>> I'm not sure we got the mirror situation 100% right yet). We sure we > >>>> got this one? > >>>> > >>>> For the more important parts, It's exciting to see the community grow > >>>> (particular the diversity part, that's a great accomplishment and I > >> know > >>>> takes significant commitment). On that note I would be interested in > >>>> hearing from other committers about graduation. > >>>> > >>> > >> >
