On Sun, Jul 3, 2016 at 7:03 PM, Jacek Laskowski wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 3, 2016 at 3:49 PM, Sean Owen wrote:
>> On Sun, Jul 3, 2016 at 2:42 PM, Jacek Laskowski wrote:
>>> 2. Add new features to master (versions - master: 2.0.0-SNAPSHOT
>>> branch: 2.0.0-RC1)
>>
>> Either:
>> a) you prohibit anyone
On Sun, Jul 3, 2016 at 3:49 PM, Sean Owen wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 3, 2016 at 2:42 PM, Jacek Laskowski wrote:
>> 2. Add new features to master (versions - master: 2.0.0-SNAPSHOT
>> branch: 2.0.0-RC1)
>
> Either:
> a) you prohibit anyone from committing anything to master that can't
> go into 2.0.0 at
On Sun, Jul 3, 2016 at 2:42 PM, Jacek Laskowski wrote:
> 2. Add new features to master (versions - master: 2.0.0-SNAPSHOT
> branch: 2.0.0-RC1)
Either:
a) you prohibit anyone from committing anything to master that can't
go into 2.0.0 at this point until it's released, holding up
development, or
b
Hi Sean,
What's wrong with the following release procedure?
1. Use master to create RC (versions - master: 2.0.0-SNAPSHOT branch: 2.0.0-RC1)
2. Add new features to master (versions - master: 2.0.0-SNAPSHOT
branch: 2.0.0-RC1)
3. RC passes a vote => ship it (versions - master: 2.1.0-SNAPSHOT
branc
It's not that you're starting 2.1 per se, but, that you're committing
things that are not in 2.0. Releases are never made from master in
moderately complex projects. It has nothing to do with pace of
release.
On Sun, Jul 3, 2016 at 1:24 PM, Jacek Laskowski wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Why would I need to sta
Hi,
Why would I need to start 2.1? If it's ready for master, why could it be
not part of 2.0? "Release early and often" is what would benefit Spark a
lot. The time to ship 2.0 is far too long I think. And I know companies
that won't use 2.0 because...it's "0" version :-(
Jacek
On 3 Jul 2016 2:59
Because in that case you cannot merge anything meant for 2.1 until 2.0 is
released.
On Saturday, July 2, 2016, Jacek Laskowski wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Always release from master. What could be the gotchas?
>
> Pozdrawiam,
> Jacek Laskowski
>
> https://medium.com/@jaceklaskowski/
> Mastering Apache
Hi,
Always release from master. What could be the gotchas?
Pozdrawiam,
Jacek Laskowski
https://medium.com/@jaceklaskowski/
Mastering Apache Spark http://bit.ly/mastering-apache-spark
Follow me at https://twitter.com/jaceklaskowski
On Sat, Jul 2, 2016 at 11:36 PM, Sean Owen wrote:
> I am n
I am not sure any other process makes sense. What are you suggesting should
happen?
On Sat, Jul 2, 2016, 22:27 Jacek Laskowski wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Thanks Sean! It makes sense.
>
> I'm not fully convinced that's how it should be, so I apologize if I
> ever ask about the version management in Spark a
Hi,
Thanks Sean! It makes sense.
I'm not fully convinced that's how it should be, so I apologize if I
ever ask about the version management in Spark again :)
Pozdrawiam,
Jacek Laskowski
https://medium.com/@jaceklaskowski/
Mastering Apache Spark http://bit.ly/mastering-apache-spark
Follow me
2.0.1 just means that the fix will be included in 2.0.1 (eg its not in the
current 2.0.0 RC).
On Saturday, July 2, 2016, Jacek Laskowski wrote:
> Hi Sean, devs,
>
> How is this possible that Fix Version/s is 2.0.1 given 2.0.0 was not
> released yet? Why is that that master is not what's going to
Because a 2.0.0 release candidate is out. If for some reason the
release candidate becomes the 2.0.0 release, then anything merged to
branch-2.0 after it is necessarily fixed in 2.0.1 at best. At this
stage we know the RC1 will not be 2.0.0, so really that vote should be
formally cancelled. Then we
Hi Sean, devs,
How is this possible that Fix Version/s is 2.0.1 given 2.0.0 was not
released yet? Why is that that master is not what's going to be
released so eventually becomes 2.0.0? I don't get it. Appreciate any
guidance. Thanks.
Pozdrawiam,
Jacek Laskowski
https://medium.com/@jaceklask
13 matches
Mail list logo