Maybe I misunderstood Sean's suggestion. I thought he meant wait until a little time after 1.6.0 release, in case post-release bugs arise. If that's what he meant, I disagree. Those can go in 1.5.2.
However, if he meant wait until 1.6.0, so that bugs found in testing 1.6.0 can be fixed in 1.5.1 also, then I agree. I think we should plan to release 1.5.1 concurrently or immediately following 1.6.0. -- Christopher L Tubbs II http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii On Tue, Nov 5, 2013 at 10:58 AM, Josh Elser <[email protected]> wrote: > Cool. > > Let's keep that in mind then as we test 1.6.0. As we get into the actual > testing phase, I'll try to get my computer provisioned up to run at least 2 > tservers and see if I can get some testing done concurrently. Maybe some > bugs will shake out the other way (1.5.1->1.6.0) as well. > > > On 11/5/13, 10:52 AM, Keith Turner wrote: >> >> On Tue, Nov 5, 2013 at 8:44 AM, John Vines <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> I agree with Mr. Busbey >>> >> >> Me too. In past 1.X.0 release testing we have found a few bugs that exist >> in earlier release that are worth fixing. >> >> >>> >>> Sent from my phone, please pardon the typos and brevity. >>> On Nov 5, 2013 1:16 AM, "Sean Busbey" <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> On Mon, Nov 4, 2013 at 11:03 PM, Josh Elser <[email protected]> >>> >>> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>> I've perused over the closed tickets a couple of times now. Nothing >>> >>> huge >>>>> >>>>> has jumped out at me, but, given how long it's been since 1.5.0, it >>>>> wouldn't be a bad idea to release a 1.5.1 with appropriate bug fixes. >>>>> >>>>> Thoughts? My thought was that since we shouldn't have been reworking >>>>> anything big in the 1.5 line, it should make it easier to test/release. >>>>> >>>> >>>> The ZooKeeper fail-over bug was a big deal. Also, just the volume >>> >>> concerns >>>> >>>> me. >>>> >>>> We should wait until after 1.6.0 makes it out, in case any fixes that >>>> surface are applicable to the 1.5.1-SNAPSHOT branch. >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Sean >>>> >>> >> >
