I’d like merge 8929e93bd129b303aae8f9e1b13daf3c3991d1a4 to the release branch. It contains only test changes. Sound reasonable?
Also in that vein, what do you think about not running flakyTest in the Jenkins release job [1]. That would give us a clearer picture of test results and quality on the release branch. We should continue to run flakyTest in the nightly Jenkins job. Anthony [1] https://builds.apache.org/job/Geode-release/ > On Oct 1, 2016, at 12:30 AM, Swapnil Bawaskar <sbawas...@pivotal.io> wrote: > > Thanks for the offer Anthony, > I tagged GEODE-17 / GEODE-1570 to be fixed in 1.0 and I removed the 1.0 tag > from GEODE-1793 so that open JIRA issues for 1.0 [1] should now be accurate. > > I have also cut a branch release/1.0.0-incubating from develop on commit > abef045179e5d805cb04bc55a77a82798becdaae for the 1.0 release. Please make > sure that only issues targeted for 1.0 are fixed on that branch. If you are > using git flow, use git flow release track 1.0.0-incubating for switching > to the new branch. > > > Thanks! > > [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 > > On Fri, Sep 30, 2016 at 11:30 AM, William Markito <wmark...@pivotal.io> > wrote: > >> +1 >> >> On Fri, Sep 30, 2016 at 9:16 AM, Kenneth Howe <kh...@pivotal.io> wrote: >> >>> +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 >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> >> ~/William >>
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
