+1. There is lot development effort pending against 1.x branch which will get unblocked with 1.1.0 branch. I am assuming, we will not introduce any backward incompatible changes in the new branch. But what will be the release timeline of 1.1.0? Many of the PRs affect small portion of code. Back porting these minor improvements as well as bugs into three branches will be counter productive. We might as well work with 1.0.x and keep pushing the changes there.
On Mon, May 9, 2016 at 8:50 AM, Jungtaek Lim <[email protected]> wrote: > What a coincidence! :) > > My feeling is that this issue would be another representation of 'drop > further releases of 0.x'. > > If we want to have minor and bugfix version separated, we would have at > least 3 branches, master (for 2.0), 1.1.x, 1.0.x. I'm seeing that not all > bugfixes are applied to 0.10.x when we're pointing 1.x-branch as next > release, which means even maintaining 3 branches are not easy. (It should > be addressed if we maintain two 1.x version lines.) > Moreover, package name change makes us a bit bothering to backport into > 0.10.x. > > So, I'm sorry for 0.x users but I'm in favor of not maintaining 0.10.x > branch. > I'm curious what we all think about this, too. > > 2016년 5월 9일 (월) 오전 11:10, P. Taylor Goetz <[email protected]>님이 작성: > > > Perfect timing as I was thinking about similar things. > > > > The new metrics APIs being proposed against the 1.x branch would be an > API > > addition, and IMO should bump the minor version when added. I'd be +1 for > > that. > > > > I guess it comes down to how many version branches do we want to support? > > We may need to divide and conquer to support that. > > > > -Taylor > > > > > On May 8, 2016, at 9:51 PM, Jungtaek Lim <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > Hi devs, > > > > > > I have a feeling that we recently try to respect semantic versioning, > at > > > least separating feature updates and bugfixes. > > > > > > Recently we released 1.0.0 and 1.0.1 continuously, which was OK since > it > > > addressed performance regressions and critical bugs. I'm curious that > we > > > want to maintain minor version line and bugfix version line for 1.x > > version > > > lines. (meaning two version lines for 1.x) > > > > > > In fact, we discussed to freeze the feature during releasing 2.0.0, but > > we > > > don't have timeframe for 2.0.0 and phase 1 is not completed yet, so I > > don't > > > think we can freeze developing or improving the features for 1.x lines. > > > > > > There're many pending pull requests for 1.x (and master, maybe) but not > > > sure I can merge them into 1.x-branch. In order to address them we > should > > > settle this. > > > > > > What do you think? > > > > > > Thanks, > > > Jungtaek Lim (HeartSaVioR) > > > -- Regards, Abhishek Agarwal
