I am comfortable with the fatter release, unless there is urgency to quickly release one of the bug fixes.
On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 5:34 PM, Gary Gregory <[email protected]> wrote: > Forget the release number for a minute and just consider this: Do we want > to release without the 'radical' ;-) new stuff (flow APIs, low/no-GC) ASAP > because we have a lot of changes already. Or, are we more comfortable with > a fatter release later, with more changes, which may feel less stable and > more disruptive depending on your POV and taste for change. > > This is all mod Ralph's availability as RM unless someone else wants to > pick up the task. > > Gary > > On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 12:20 AM, Matt Sicker <[email protected]> wrote: > >> That does sound like a 2.5.1 release. I'd be fine with a 2.5.1 release. >> If it's already changed enough to warrant 2.6 semantically, we might as >> well finish our other 2.6 work first. >> >> On 21 February 2016 at 02:11, Remko Popma <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Depending on whether we can get consensus on a Logger API without >>> varargs, I estimate I am about a week away from finishing the code changes >>> for the GC-free epic. I would then want to do performance tests and do a >>> write-up, which is another week or two. >>> >>> I would prefer including this work in the 2.6 release, but if the >>> consensus is to do a release soon without the GC-free epic I won't object. >>> -Remko >>> >>> On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 5:07 PM, Remko Popma <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Without the flow logging API changes and gc-free stuff it would just be >>>> a 2.5.1 release, no? >>>> >>>> On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 5:02 PM, Gary Gregory <[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> FWIW: From a practical POV, one way to do this would be to branch >>>>> master into a 2.6 branch and prune the branch of the new stuff. >>>>> >>>>> Gary >>>>> >>>>> On Sat, Feb 20, 2016 at 10:22 PM, Gary Gregory <[email protected] >>>>> > wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Hi All: >>>>>> >>>>>> Since we have a nice stack of changes already, I would like for us to >>>>>> consider the following: >>>>>> >>>>>> Release 2.6 without the new flow tracing APIs and without the new >>>>>> low/no-GC code (ByteBufferDestination and all). >>>>>> >>>>>> Then we can make the next release have two themes: flow tracing and >>>>>> no/low GC. >>>>>> >>>>>> This would avoid too big a 2.6 release in relation to 2.5. >>>>>> >>>>>> Thoughts? >>>>>> >>>>>> Gary >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> E-Mail: [email protected] | [email protected] >>>>>> Java Persistence with Hibernate, Second Edition >>>>>> <http://www.manning.com/bauer3/> >>>>>> JUnit in Action, Second Edition <http://www.manning.com/tahchiev/> >>>>>> Spring Batch in Action <http://www.manning.com/templier/> >>>>>> Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com >>>>>> Home: http://garygregory.com/ >>>>>> Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> E-Mail: [email protected] | [email protected] >>>>> Java Persistence with Hibernate, Second Edition >>>>> <http://www.manning.com/bauer3/> >>>>> JUnit in Action, Second Edition <http://www.manning.com/tahchiev/> >>>>> Spring Batch in Action <http://www.manning.com/templier/> >>>>> Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com >>>>> Home: http://garygregory.com/ >>>>> Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> Matt Sicker <[email protected]> >> > > > > -- > E-Mail: [email protected] | [email protected] > Java Persistence with Hibernate, Second Edition > <http://www.manning.com/bauer3/> > JUnit in Action, Second Edition <http://www.manning.com/tahchiev/> > Spring Batch in Action <http://www.manning.com/templier/> > Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com > Home: http://garygregory.com/ > Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory >
