Also +1, except for the work to get the Windows port running correctly. -Joan
----- Original Message ----- > From: "Michelle Phung" <michelleph...@gmail.com> > To: dev@couchdb.apache.org > Sent: Thursday, May 26, 2016 7:23:46 AM > Subject: Re: 2.0 Code Freeze or branching 2.1? > > +1 > > - Michelle > > > On May 26, 2016, at 6:34 AM, Alexander Shorin <kxe...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > > I think that's better call feature/improvements freeze, since we > > still > > have to commit the code that includes bugfixes. > > > > +1 > > -- > > ,,,^..^,,, > > > > > >> On Thu, May 26, 2016 at 12:56 PM, Robert Newson > >> <rnew...@apache.org> wrote: > >> +1 for code freeze. > >> > >> The only changes we will merge to master branches must contribute > >> toward 2.0 actually shipping. > >> > >> I would also not make 2.x.x branches until 2.0 is GA. the first > >> commit on all those branches should be the release itself. > >> Subsequent commits are backported fixes from master only. > >> > >> Lets explicitly say that we'll take no work for future > >> enhancements or fixes until 2.0 ships. We must get this out. > >> > >> Sent from my iPhone > >> > >>> On 26 May 2016, at 09:10, Andy Wenk <andyw...@apache.org> wrote: > >>> > >>> Hi, > >>> > >>> in my opinion, everybody is interested to add new features on a > >>> stable version of CouchDB. So with a code freeze, everybody is > >>> asked to help get 2.0 shipped because then, new features can be > >>> added with more focus and on a stable release. > >>> > >>> For me, this sounds better than branching even though, that some > >>> people will work on their own repos. > >>> > >>> +1 for code freeze > >>> > >>> Side note: as I am not actively developing, my opinion should be > >>> taken with low prio because there might be reasons from others > >>> to prefer branching. > >>> > >>> Thanks to everyone making CouchDB 2.0 great! > >>> > >>> Andy > >>> > >>> -- > >>> Andy Wenk > >>> RockIt! > >>> > >>> Hamburg / Germany > >>> > >>> GPG public key: > >>> https://pgp.mit.edu/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x4F1D0C59BC90917D > >>> > >>>> On 26 May 2016, at 09:42, Jan Lehnardt <j...@apache.org> wrote: > >>>> > >>>> Hey all, > >>>> > >>>> last night on IRC Bob brought up a good point: we have ongoing > >>>> development going into our repos while we are trying to get 2.0 > >>>> out the > >>>> door. It might be time to split these two. > >>>> > >>>> Bob suggested a code freeze until we ship a first 2.0 beta. An > >>>> alternative would be to branch out 2.x.x and stabilise that, > >>>> port any > >>>> fixes to master, where regular development can occur there. > >>>> > >>>> Both alternatives have their pros and cons, but I like the > >>>> aspect of a > >>>> code freeze that forces everyone to help get the release build > >>>> stable. > >>>> > >>>> That said, I fear that most folks would then just commit to > >>>> their > >>>> personal or other corporate repos (hello Cloudant) and only sync > >>>> to ASF > >>>> repos when the freeze is over, and not help out with the build. > >>>> > >>>> E.g. I don’t want to force anyone into anything they don’t want > >>>> to do > >>>> with an arbitrary policy, but I’d be in support of a code freeze > >>>> if > >>>> people here would signal that it’d help them focus on a stable > >>>> build > >>>> as opposed to new feature development. > >>>> > >>>> What do you think? > >>>> > >>>> Best > >>>> Jan > >>>> -- > >> >
