+1 to including docs On Wed, Oct 5, 2016 at 12:48 PM Anthony Baker <aba...@pivotal.io> wrote:
> +1 for including docs in the release > > Anthony > > > On Oct 4, 2016, at 11:52 AM, Swapnil Bawaskar <sbawas...@pivotal.io> > wrote: > > > > This sounds like feature creep, but based on this thread: > > http://markmail.org/message/fwfslt2s7yl7mqm4 do we want to target > GEODE-1952 > > <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GEODE-1952> for 1.0? > > > > On Sat, 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 > >>> > >> > >> > >
