Especially as nothing that would be going into the 0.x release is a major feature or changes compatibility (from my understanding), I would +1 the 0.7.3 suggestion.
Andy LoPresto alopre...@apache.org alopresto.apa...@gmail.com PGP Fingerprint: 70EC B3E5 98A6 5A3F D3C4 BACE 3C6E F65B 2F7D EF69 > On Feb 24, 2017, at 2:07 PM, Tony Kurc <trk...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I think it is probably worth clarifying the intent of the support language. > I believe the intent was to support 0.x for a year after 1.x was released. > That was how I initially read the document you mentioned. But after a > re-read, I'd echo your concerns about dragging old major lines along. > > Tony > > On Fri, Feb 24, 2017 at 4:12 PM, Joe Witt <joe.w...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Brandon, >> >> My concern is the language used when we published this "We support the >> newest major release line (0.x, 1.x) and any previous major release >> lines for up to one year since the last minor release (0.6.x, 1.5.y) >> in that line" within this document [1]. >> >> If I read that now it seems like we're saying "if we make a minor >> release we're going to support that for up to a year" and so each time >> we create a new minor line on a given major line it means we are >> resetting the clock. >> >> I do not believe we should give old major lines, such as 0.x, the >> ability to drag on the community indefinitely as that reads. I >> believe it should be that we support a given major release line for up >> to one year one after a new major release line is provided. >> >> So would like to hear peoples thoughts on that. >> >> If an 0.8 release is to occur the items called out are things which >> impact licensing only (specifically the no longer allowed cat-x json >> library). I would be far more comfortable with 0.7.3 release which >> would be fixing whatever bugs have been addressed. That avoids the >> concern I noted above for this case though i'd still like us to >> clarify that language/intent anyway. >> >> Thanks >> Joe >> >> On Fri, Feb 24, 2017 at 3:21 PM, Brandon DeVries <b...@jhu.edu> wrote: >>> Team, >>> >>> The only unresolved tickets against the 0.8.0 release[1] are for the >>> removal of code... With that in mind, does anyone object to trying to >> push >>> for this (possibly final) 0.x release? >>> >>> Brandon >>> >>> [1] >>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=project%20% >> 3D%20NIFI%20AND%20fixVersion%20%3D%200.8.0%20AND%20resolution%20%3D% >> 20Unresolved%20ORDER%20BY%20due%20ASC%2C%20priority% >> 20DESC%2C%20created%20ASC >>
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
