+1
> On Sep 29, 2016, at 2:31 PM, Jacob Barrett <jbarr...@pivotal.io> wrote:
>
> +1 for creating branch now to prevent feature creep.
>
> On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 2:10 PM Kirk Lund <kl...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> I think we should propose creating that release branch sooner (now?) so we
>> can minimize unplanned changes slipping into 1.0 and destabilizing it.
>>
>> -Kirk
>>
>> On Thursday, September 29, 2016, Anthony Baker <aba...@pivotal.io> wrote:
>>
>>> Using the gitflow approach, we cut a release/1.0.0 branch to isolate the
>>> release branch from ongoing development. For past releases we have
>> waited
>>> as long as possible to cut the branch to minimize overhead. Perhaps this
>>> time we should create the branch earlier.
>>>
>>> JIRA shows the open issues for 1.0.0 [1] but there are some deltas
>>> compared to the last release scope email [2].
>>>
>>> GEODE-17 / GEODE-1570 was mentioned as a possible candidate for 1.0.0 but
>>> the Fix Version is not set
>>> GEODE-1168 was not included in the 1.0.0 scope discussions but Fix
>> Version
>>> is set to 1.0.0
>>> GEODE-1914 is follow on work from the package namespace changes
>>>
>>> @Swapnil, does this accurately reflect the scope discussions for 1.0.0?
>>> If so, I can update the bugs.
>>>
>>> Anthony
>>>
>>> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=project%20%
>>> 3D%20GEODE%20AND%20fixVersion%20%3D%201.0.0-incubating%
>>> 20AND%20resolution%20%3D%20Unresolved%20ORDER%20BY%
>>> 20due%20ASC%2C%20priority%20DESC%2C%20created%20ASC
>>>
>>> [2] http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-geode-
>>> dev/201609.mbox/%3cCANZq1gBzMTEM_JHzw2YT_LZeC5g472XkNCfJhma76xah=Yyq6A@
>>> mail.gmail.com%3e
>>>
>>>
>>>> On Sep 29, 2016, at 1:02 PM, Kirk Lund <kl...@apache.org
>> <javascript:;>>
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> What changes are we still waiting on to cut the next RC of Geode 1.0?
>>>>
>>>> Is there a way to create a branch for Geode 1.0 develop that allows
>> folks
>>>> to continue working on post-1.0 features or bug fixes without
>>> destabilizing
>>>> Geode 1.0? This way, only the necessary changes for Geode 1.0 would go
>> to
>>>> the 1.0 branch?
>>>>
>>>> -Kirk
>>>
>>>
>>
