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 > > > > > >
