I agree. It would be good to reserve the 0.9.x line for bug fixes only, and changes 0.10.0 should be somewhat limited to minor improvements and bug fixes. The focus for removing the “beta” label for 0.10.0 should be stabilization rather than new features. That being said, it is not a hard rule. I’m open to pulling anything in as long as there is PMC/dev community consensus.
I’m also fine with pulling in Dan’s change to 0.10.x. -Taylor > On Jul 7, 2015, at 10:24 AM, Bobby Evans <[email protected]> wrote: > > I personally am fine with pulling in Dan's change to 0.10.x. From a > documentation perspective I think we need to come to a consensus on how we > want to manage releases. In other projects I have worked on there is a > release manager that is approved for a given release line. They are the gate > keeper for what does and does not go in. I think we are small enough that we > can forgo with that formality so long as we are in agreement. From my > perspective 0.9.x is stable and closed to new features, only bug fixes will > go in there. 0.10.x is still in beta and I am fine with small improvements > that were missed going in, but primarily bug fixes. Master is open for new > features. In general if something goes into a previous release line, it also > needs to go into all higher numbered active lines. Also in general even > though master is open to new features and it is a different version number we > should avoid making changes that break binary compatibility. That is not to > say that it is forbidden, it is to say that if we can make the change without > breaking compatibility we should. > If we get to the point where there is conflict about what should go into a > given release then we can revisit the bylaws at that point and resolve the > issue. we already have rules about how to merge in code. It does not > specify which branch that code goes into. If you want to change the version > number to 0.10.0 from 0.10.0-beta1 lets get the last of the missed features > in and make the switch. > - Bobby > > > > On Monday, July 6, 2015 11:40 PM, 임정택 <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Hi Bobby! Thanks for answering. :) > > Yes, I also think we need to keep 0.10.0's features as same, and accept > only bugfix. > > First one is about documentation, so that I can feel that it's safe to > merge to frozen branch. > Second one is about bugfix introduced on 0.10.0-beta, so it should be > merged to 0.10.x-branch. > > For now, I'd like to name version to 0.10.0. > When we have different opinion, we can change CHANGELOG.md and relevant > JIRA issues. > > Next thing I'm wondering is "omitting functionality from already introduced > feature". > Dan Blanchard said he omitted one thing which he actually wanted, see > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-789?focusedCommentId=14615630&page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel#comment-14615630 > . > In this case, does Dan need to wait for 0.11.0 to add missed thing? > > Thanks, > Jungtaek Lim (HeartSaVioR) > > > 2015-07-07 1:31 GMT+09:00 Bobby Evans <[email protected]>: > >> I thought that 0.10.0 is now bug fix only, unless Taylor has a different >> opinion. Once we feel that it is stable then we can drop the beta. >> - Bobby >> >> >> >> On Tuesday, June 30, 2015 5:03 PM, 임정택 <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> Hi! >> >> Since I started reviewing and merging PRs, there're some PRs which are >> suitable to master, and also 0.10.0. >> (STORM-843 <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-843>, STORM-866 >> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-866>) >> >> We didn't define next step of Storm 0.10.0 beta, so I cannot merge them >> into 0.10.x-branch. >> >> Maybe two questions have to be answered before merging into 0.10.x-branch. >> >> 1. What's the next version of 0.10.0-beta1? beta2 or stable? >> 2. Will Taylor handle them, or it is at the discretion of the Committer? >> >> For now I merged them into master only. >> >> If topic was discussed, please let me know so that I can find the result. >> >> Thanks, >> Jungtaek Lim (HeartSaVioR) >> >> >> >> > > > > -- > Name : 임 정택 > Blog : http://www.heartsavior.net / http://dev.heartsavior.net > Twitter : http://twitter.com/heartsavior > LinkedIn : http://www.linkedin.com/in/heartsavior >
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
