IIUC, the summary of this discussion is that no one (yet) sees the
issues flagged
as blockers for the 3.4.9 release. No one yet has decided to vote -1. (If
anybody has concerns, I'm happy to create another release candidate.)
This [VOTE] is still open, so kindly do review the RC and vote.
OK, it would be good to update the existing list in 'HowToRelease' page so
that it will be clear to everyone.
Hi All,
I'd request everyone to cast your vote on 3.4.9-RC2 and that would really
helpful to take the thread ahead. Thank you!
Rakesh
On Mon, Aug 29, 2016 at 7:29 PM, Flavio Junqueira
Issues that are "not a problem" are essentially no-ops. Including them is not
wrong per se, but I'd say it is unnecessary and adds more lines to the release
notes. Unless the goal of the release notes is to list the issues we
investigated as part of the release, I'd say that going forward we
OK, I got it. Thanks a lot for the clarification.
Rakesh
On Mon, Aug 29, 2016 at 9:14 AM, Patrick Hunt wrote:
> I would say it's acceptable to include 1676 in the release note. IMO we
> shouldn't list things in the release notes if they weren't addressed (typ
> fixed) in that
I would say it's acceptable to include 1676 in the release note. IMO we
shouldn't list things in the release notes if they weren't addressed (typ
fixed) in that release. However in this case I don't see why it's a very
big deal - if folks are that interested in the issue they could quickly see
(by
Thanks Patrick, I just referred 3.4.6 release note and I could see similar
category, ZOOKEEPER-1599 marked resolution as 'Not A Problem' and included
in 3.4.6 release note. Should we follow the same pattern and
include ZOOKEEPER-1676 also in 3.4.9 release note, please correct me if I
missed
On Sun, Aug 28, 2016 at 8:18 AM, Rakesh Radhakrishnan
wrote:
> Thanks Flavio for taking the discussion ahead. Thanks Michael for pointing
> out these cases.
>
> >>> Looking at release notes:
> >>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?p
>