[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FALCON-2141?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=15466470#comment-15466470
]
Ajay Yadava edited comment on FALCON-2141 at 9/6/16 5:35 AM:
-------------------------------------------------------------
I suspect you are using the backward compatibility as criterion to call certain
features as 1.0 features. This is not the case as per my understanding. In fact
the key feature, API Stability, itself needs to be backward compatible, IMO.
I am looking more from a view point of patch release with critical bug
fixes(0.10.1), and one feature release which happens to be 1.0 because it
contains API stability. However, it seems from [~sandeep.samudrala] and your
comments that you are suggesting a parallel feature branch along with 1.0. If
you go through the email for 1.0 this is opposite in spirit, to many of the
proposals for 1.0 (e.g. reasons to do it in master / reasons to reduce the
scope)
If the intention is to run 2 parallel branch lines of falcon then I suggest you
please pitch the same with the details on the discussion thread for 1.0.
Personally, I have lot of concerns in that approach but I would like to hear
your thoughts on the plan and reason for taking that route.
Edit: forks -> branch lines
was (Author: ajayyadava):
I suspect you are using the backward compatibility as criterion to call certain
features as 1.0 features. This is not the case as per my understanding. In fact
the key feature, API Stability, itself needs to be backward compatible, IMO.
I am looking more from a view point of patch release with critical bug
fixes(0.10.1), and one feature release which happens to be 1.0 because it
contains API stability. However, it seems from [~sandeep.samudrala] and your
comments that you are suggesting a parallel feature branch along with 1.0. If
you go through the email for 1.0 this is opposite in spirit, to many of the
proposals for 1.0 (e.g. reasons to do it in master / reasons to reduce the
scope)
If the intention is to run 2 parallel forks of falcon then I suggest you please
pitch the same with the details on the discussion thread for 1.0. Personally, I
have lot of concerns in that approach but I would like to hear your thoughts on
the plan and reason for taking that route.
> Bump up pom to 1.0
> ------------------
>
> Key: FALCON-2141
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FALCON-2141
> Project: Falcon
> Issue Type: Task
> Reporter: Ajay Yadava
> Assignee: Ajay Yadava
> Fix For: 1.0
>
>
> As discussed in an earlier dev-sync up, we will do development for 1.0 in
> master. This JIRA is to update the poms in the project to 1.0 instead of 0.11
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)
