Just got done reviewing them and I agree, Phil.
We should be able to spin a 1.0.0 this week if we do that.


On Mon, Jan 8, 2018 at 1:23 PM, Philip Zampino <pzamp...@gmail.com> wrote:

> +1
>
> IMO, KNOX-998 <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/KNOX-998> and
> KNOX-1101
> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/KNOX-1101> are the only remaining
> ones that seem like they should be included in 1.0.0; the rest are bug
> fixes or additions, which could be pushed to a 1.1.0 release.
>
> On Mon, Jan 8, 2018 at 12:37 PM, Sandeep More <moresand...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > +1
> > Sounds good !
> >
> > On Mon, Jan 8, 2018 at 12:27 PM, larry mccay <lmc...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> > > All -
> > >
> > > I think that we have allowed scope creep to affect the ability to spin
> > > 1.0.0 as quickly as we can after 0.14.0.
> > >
> > > I propose that a descoping effort is required in order to keep 1.0.0
> > > functionally in line with 0.14.0.
> > >
> > > Even though many of the current 13 JIRAs have patches available and
> don't
> > > necessarily add risk, we should keep in mind the testing requirements
> for
> > > things like new service definitions.
> > >
> > > Also, I would like be able to use the 1.0.0 release as a natural
> boundary
> > > for uptaking Hadoop 3 libraries for our Hadoop based providers as well
> as
> > > the class repackaging.
> > >
> > > We would then have 1.0.0 as a choice for those deployments that are
> > > comfortable with Hadoop 3 uptake and 0.14.0 for those that are in a
> wait
> > > and see mode - without a difference in feature sets.
> > >
> > > With that said, I am proposing to move the vast majority of the 1.0.0
> > JIRAs
> > > back out to a 1.1.0 fix version.
> > >
> > > Thoughts?
> > >
> > > --larry
> > >
> >
>

Reply via email to