Thanks everyone for chiming in on the discussion. Since no blockers were raised, I'll go ahead and start a vote thread.
Regards, Sangjin On Fri, Jun 24, 2016 at 11:32 AM, 俊平堵 <[email protected]> wrote: > Thanks Sangjin, Li and for sharing your points also. Yes. That's my > original point that we shouldn't bind the merge of YARN-2928 to trunk with > any alpha release in the short term. Actually, from this ATS v2 merge case, > we can see the value of keeping trunk independent of short-term releases as > the bar of trunk merging is different from alpha release. > Let's discuss 3.0.0-alpha release plan and scope in other threads and > focus on merging ATS v2 to trunk here. Again, big +1 to merge ATS v2 to > trunk. > > 2016-06-24 10:37 GMT-07:00 Li Lu <[email protected]>: > >> >> On Jun 24, 2016, at 09:59, Sangjin Lee <[email protected]<mailto: >> [email protected]>> wrote: >> >> Also for my understanding, the implication of merging it to trunk is that >> it would be included in 3.0.0-alpha1 (unless 3.0.0-alpha1 gets cut before >> the merge), right? >> Thanks Sangjin and yes, if the 3.0.0-alpha branch is cut after we merge, >> that will be included? That said, maybe we do not want to strongly couple >> the merge plan with release plans now since YARN-2928 not yet merged in >> trunk? >> > >
