I'd like to pick up this email discussion again. It is time that we started thinking about the next release in the 2.6.x line. IMO we want to walk the balance between maintaining a reasonable release cadence and getting a good amount of high-quality fixes. The timeframe is a little tricky as the holidays are approaching. If we have enough fixes accumulated in branch-2.6, some time early December might be a good target for cutting the first release candidate. Once we miss that window, I think we are looking at next January. I'd like to hear your thoughts on this.
It'd be good if someone can volunteer for the release manager for 2.6.3. I'd be happy to help out in any way I can. Thanks! Regards, Sangjin On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 11:45 AM, Vinod Vavilapalli <vino...@hortonworks.com> wrote: > Just to stress on the following, it is very important that any critical > bug-fixes that we push into 2.8.0 or even trunk, we should consider them > for 2.6.3 and 2.7.3 if it makes sense. This is the only way we can avoid > extremely long release cycles like that of 2.6.1. > > Also, to clarify a little, use Target-version if you want a discussion of > the backport, but if you do end up backporting patches after that, you > should set the fix-version to be 2.6.1. > > Thanks > +Vinod > > > > On Nov 2, 2015, at 11:29 AM, Sangjin Lee <sj...@apache.org> wrote: > > > > As you may have seen, 2.6.2 is out > > <http://markmail.org/thread/yw53xgz6wzpqnclt>. I have also retargeted > all > > open issues that were targeted for 2.6.2 to 2.6.3. > > > > Continuing the discussion in the email thread here > > <http://markmail.org/thread/ofjlzurok223bzyi>, I'd like us to maintain > the > > cadence of monthly point releases in the 2.6.x line. It would be great if > > we can have 2.6.3 released before the year-end holidays. > > > > If you have any bugfixes and improvements that are targeted for 2.7.x (or > > 2.8) that you think are applicable to 2.6.x, please *set the target > version > > to 2.6.3* and merge them to branch-2.6. Please use your judgment in terms > > of the applicability and quality of the changes so that we can ensure > each > > point release is consistently better quality than the previous one. > Thanks > > everyone! > > > > Regards, > > Sangjin > >
