Would it be simpler to list what we not include? I think most of the stuff added since then is fixes, not fundamental features. I would include almost all of it, also the closure cleaner, the type fixes, ...
On Mon, Dec 1, 2014 at 1:59 PM, Till Rohrmann <till.rohrm...@gmail.com> wrote: > If we include the commit > > [runtime] CaseClassSerializer correctly treated as stateful > f66892d46d80d453a55fd0ae14095ee06275a55d > > then we also have to include > > 3d242fd7aea6add18465d628a258be11def2d0af > > because the ScalaCsvInputFormat using the CaseClassSerializer won't work > properly anymore with the CaseClassSerializer set to be stateful. > > > On Mon, Dec 1, 2014 at 12:50 PM, Ufuk Celebi <u...@apache.org> wrote: > > > On Mon, Dec 1, 2014 at 12:15 PM, Robert Metzger <rmetz...@apache.org> > > wrote: > > > > > I would not include issues that cause bad performance, fix testcases or > > > code-style. I would rather prefer to aim for a 0.8 release soon (maybe > a > > > Christmas or new year release ;) ) > > > > > > > > > Is there a performance-critical commit, which would be *more* work to > back > > port than the other commits? If not, I don't see any reason to exclude > > them. > > >
