I must have misread it. Thanks for clarifying. --Bobby
From: Vinod Kumar Vavilapalli <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Reply-To: "[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Date: Tuesday, September 4, 2012 7:29 PM To: "[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Subject: Re: Branch 2 release names May be you misread the proposal. This is only about nuking 2.1.0-alpha and wait for 0.23.3 to be stabilized and released. Once that happens, we can create a branch-2.1 off branch-2. Does that sound okay? Thanks, +Vinod Kumar Vavilapalli Hortonworks Inc. http://hortonworks.com/ On Sep 4, 2012, at 3:05 PM, Robert Evans wrote: I am fine with that too, but it is going to be a fairly large amount of work to pull in all of the bug fixes into 2.0 that have gone into 0.23. There was already a lot of discussion about just rebasing 2.1 instead of trying to merge everything back into it and 2.1 is a lot further along then 2.0 is. Just something to be aware of. --Bobby Evans
