Re: Draft Agenda for Bi-weekly meeting at 2017-11-16

[Ivan Kelly]

>4.
>
>documentation: Sijie: would like to make some enforcement on
>documentation before merging code changes for big features. JV: it would be
>good to look for any github tools to make sure this process automate.

We should have a documentation review a month before each release, and
anything that's out of date, we should create blocking issues. Also, a
github tool to remind people to create a task would be good.

-Ivan

Re: Draft Agenda for Bi-weekly meeting at 2017-11-16

[Jia Zhai]

Here is the meeting notes

:

*Notes: *

   1.

   release 4.5.1 is almost close to release. JV and other salesforce folks
   should check the 4.5.1 release and vote
   2.

   release 4.6.0 is almost close to the RC. most of the pending requests
   are around new API, they are either out for reviews or someone is already
   working on it.
   3.

   long pending pull requests: logging and native fallocate. Sijie will
   follow up with Matteo to close the logging one and Sijie will move the
   fallocate one to 4.7.
   4.

   documentation: Sijie: would like to make some enforcement on
   documentation before merging code changes for big features. JV: it would be
   good to look for any github tools to make sure this process automate.
   5.

   BP-14: JV will take a look at the BP-14 and come back with comments
   6. backward & forward compatibility: JV: bump versions when protocol is
   changed. Sam: the advantage of protobuf is the optional fields. in the
   cases if a bookie can ignore the new flags, it is unnecessary to bump the
   versions. Sijie: let’s keep the discussion going on the pull request and
   mailing list.


Thanks everyone for your time.

On Thu, Nov 16, 2017 at 6:55 PM, Ivan Kelly  wrote:

> >> There has been discussion about release procedure (the rc suffix. Don't
> >> know if it worth to spend some words on this, maybe not.
> >
> > I think there is already sort of a conclusion on that thread. I am not
> sure
> > we need to go through it again.
>
> Unless someone else wants to jump in on my side of the argument (i.e.
> that we should have a suffix in the filename and pom.xml version), I
> consider this issue closed.
>
> -Ivan
>