+1 for that too. We should be on the same page here, but this is non-binding.
The bylaws state that any PMC member can bring up a release for a vote.
- Bobby
On Monday, May 9, 2016 8:20 AM, Aaron. Dossett <aaron.doss...@target.com>
wrote:
+1. Same here.
On 5/9/16, 5:47 AM, "John Fang" <xiaojian....@alibaba-inc.com> wrote:
>I'm also think we shouldn't maintain 0.10.x branch
>
>-----邮件原件-----
>发件人: Cody Innowhere [mailto:e.neve...@gmail.com]
>发送时间: 2016年5月9日 19:42
>收件人: dev@storm.apache.org
>主题: Re: [DISCUSSION] Version lines of 1.x
>
>I'm also +1 for maintaining 1.x branch & master and not maintaining
>0.10.x branch.
>
>On Mon, May 9, 2016 at 1:04 PM, Abhishek Agarwal <abhishc...@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>> +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 <kabh...@gmail.com> 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 <ptgo...@gmail.com>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 <kabh...@gmail.com>
>>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
>>
>
>
