It seems like there was some confusion around when the branch cut was going
to happen. I cut the branch yesterday, but a dozen release blocking fixes
went in immediately after. I recut the branch today, one day late, at
1d9daf1
Yes, that is what I meant. Sorry about mixing up the month!
On Thu, Mar 28, 2019 at 9:26 AM Robert Burke wrote:
> I'm going to go out on a limb and assume you mean first RC cut on April
> 3rd, and the Cherry-pick deadline EoD (PST?) April 2nd.
>
> On Thu, 28 Mar 2019 at 09:23, Andrew Pilloud
I'm going to go out on a limb and assume you mean first RC cut on April
3rd, and the Cherry-pick deadline EoD (PST?) April 2nd.
On Thu, 28 Mar 2019 at 09:23, Andrew Pilloud wrote:
> It seems like there was some confusion around when the branch cut was
> going to happen. I cut the branch
Sounds great, thanks for volunteering to do the release.
Etienne
Le mercredi 13 mars 2019 à 12:08 -0700, Andrew Pilloud a écrit :
> Hello Beam community!
> Beam 2.12 release branch cut date is March 27th according to the release
> calendar [1]. I would like to volunteer
> myself to do this
I agree with Kenn on both accounts. We can (and should) keep 2.7.x
alive with an immanent 2.7.1 release, and choose the next one at a
future date based on actual experience with an existing release.
On Fri, Mar 15, 2019 at 5:36 PM Ahmet Altay wrote:
>
> +1 to extending 2.7.x LTS lifetime for a
+1 to extending 2.7.x LTS lifetime for a little longer and simultaneously
making a 2.7.1 release.
On Fri, Mar 15, 2019 at 9:32 AM Kenneth Knowles wrote:
> We actually have some issues queued up for 2.7.1, and IMO it makes sense
> to extend 2.7 since the 6 month period was just a pilot and like
We actually have some issues queued up for 2.7.1, and IMO it makes sense to
extend 2.7 since the 6 month period was just a pilot and like you say we
haven't really exercised LTS.
Re 2.12.0 I strongly feel LTS should be designated after a release has seen
some use. If we extend 2.7 for another
Given no LTS activity for 2.7.x - do we really need it?
On Fri, Mar 15, 2019 at 6:54 AM Ismaël Mejía wrote:
> After looking at the dates it seems that 2.12 should be the next LTS
> since it will be exactly 6 months after the release of 2.7.0. Anyone
> has comments, or prefer to do the LTS
After looking at the dates it seems that 2.12 should be the next LTS
since it will be exactly 6 months after the release of 2.7.0. Anyone
has comments, or prefer to do the LTS better for the next version
(2.13) ?
On Thu, Mar 14, 2019 at 12:13 PM Michael Luckey wrote:
>
> @mxm
>
> Sure we should.
@mxm
Sure we should. Unfortunately the scripts to not have any '--dry-run'
toggle. Implementing this seemed not too easy on first sight, as those
release scripts do assume committed outputs of their predecessors and are
not yet in the shape to be parameterised.
So here is what I did:
1. As I did
Hi Andrew,
Sounds good. Thank you for being the release manager.
@Michael Shall we perform some dry-run release testing for ensuring
Gradle 5 compatibility?
Thanks,
Max
On 14.03.19 00:28, Michael Luckey wrote:
Sounds good. Thanks for volunteering.
Just as a side note: @aaltay had trouble
Sounds good. Thanks for volunteering.
Just as a side note: @aaltay had trouble releasing caused by the switch to
gradle5. Although that should be fixed now, you will be the first using
those changes in production. So if you encounter any issues. do not
hesitate to blame and contact me. Also I am
Sounds great, thank you!
On Wed, Mar 13, 2019 at 12:09 PM Andrew Pilloud wrote:
> Hello Beam community!
>
> Beam 2.12 release branch cut date is March 27th according to the release
> calendar [1]. I would like to volunteer myself to do this release. I intend
> to cut the branch as planned on
Hello Beam community!
Beam 2.12 release branch cut date is March 27th according to the release
calendar [1]. I would like to volunteer myself to do this release. I intend
to cut the branch as planned on March 27th and cherrypick fixes if needed.
If you have releasing blocking issues for 2.12
14 matches
Mail list logo
