What I really wanted to address is, I don't want to see us making effort with questioning/deciding this bug should be port back to 0.x, and do actual work by hand (since we change the package name) for each pull request. There will be three branches to concern, and since master and 1.x are diverged so addressing bugfixes and new features are not easy even without 0.x.
If dropping 0.x lines feels too strong and restricted, we could also open the possibility of adoption when pull requests are on 0.10.x so we don't need to port back at all. In other words, I'm also +1 to keep 0.10.x branch without considering backport. 2016년 5월 10일 (화) 오전 8:30, P. Taylor Goetz <[email protected]>님이 작성: > I think we're in total agreement. I just would like to see 0.10.x remain > open for bug fixes and releases. I don't think we should back port new > features. > > -Taylor > > > On May 9, 2016, at 7:06 PM, Jungtaek Lim <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Taylor, > > > > That would be also OK with me. > > What I really wanted to address is that I don't see the benefit to give > > efforts to maintain 0.x version line. In other words, I don't want to > > backport non-critical bugfix to 0.x version. > > It should be minimized, but it would be still possible to release new 0.x > > versions when we found security vulnerability or critical bugs. > > Since I'm seeing the consensus between us, I think it's OK to leave them > as > > is, with notification to user@, or ask on user@ what Taylor suggested. > > > > Let's back to 1.x version lines. Do we all agree to maintain two version > > lines - minor version / bugfix version? > > > > 2016년 5월 10일 (화) 오전 5:52, P. Taylor Goetz <[email protected]>님이 작성: > > > >> I’m okay with discontinuing active development on 0.10.x. That being > said, > >> I don’t think we should discourage bug fixes against that branch. There > >> will be users on those versions for a long time. I think not too long > ago I > >> saw a question from someone who was still on a pre-Apache release. :) > >> > >> We may want to poll users to get an idea of where people stand on > >> versions. Should we ask on user@? > >> > >> -Taylor > >> > >>> On May 9, 2016, at 11:21 AM, Hugo Da Cruz Louro < > [email protected]> > >> wrote: > >>> > >>> +1 (non-binding) or maintaining 1.x branch as it is the base for all > the > >> package name change and lots of new features. If we have to discontinue > a > >> branch, I would also favor discontinuing 0.10.x . > >>> > >>> Hugo > >>> > >>>> On May 9, 2016, at 8:06 AM, Bobby Evans <[email protected]> > >> wrote: > >>>> > >>>> +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 < > >> [email protected]> wrote: > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> +1. Same here. > >>>> > >>>>> On 5/9/16, 5:47 AM, "John Fang" <[email protected]> > wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> I'm also think we shouldn't maintain 0.10.x branch > >>>>> > >>>>> -----邮件原件----- > >>>>> 发件人: Cody Innowhere [mailto:[email protected]] > >>>>> 发送时间: 2016年5月9日 19:42 > >>>>> 收件人: [email protected] > >>>>> 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 < > [email protected] > >>> > >>>>> 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 <[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 > >>>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>> > >> > >> >
