Hey All-
Its about time to cut our first branch in the 2.0 series and starting
testing release candidates.
TC1.8 is not quite yet through the incubator voting process, but it appears
that approval is hopefully quite close. No changes have gone into 1.8 in
the past few months, so on top of the mo
+100 !
I really want to get some changes in to 2.1.
Thanks,
JvD
> On Feb 20, 2017, at 1:42 PM, Eric Friedrich wrote:
>
> Hey All-
> Its about time to cut our first branch in the 2.0 series and starting
> testing release candidates.
>
> TC1.8 is not quite yet through the incubator voting pro
Agree -- I think sooner-is-better for branching 2.0.
Cheers,
Mark
On Mon, Feb 20, 2017 at 3:57 PM, Jan van Doorn wrote:
> +100 !
>
> I really want to get some changes in to 2.1.
>
> Thanks,
> JvD
>
> > On Feb 20, 2017, at 1:42 PM, Eric Friedrich wrote:
> >
> > Hey All-
> > Its about time to c
I'll take a look at open PRs tomorrow and see if there is anything I want
to make sure gets in. Other than that I am +1
On Mon, Feb 20, 2017 at 16:06 Mark Torluemke wrote:
> Agree -- I think sooner-is-better for branching 2.0.
>
> Cheers,
> Mark
>
> On Mon, Feb 20, 2017 at 3:57 PM, Jan van Doorn
Any particular reason these changes don’t just go into 2.0?
I think that smaller, more frequent releases pose less risk to deploy. Aside
from that are there other reasons to keep code “in your pocket” until the
release branch is cut?
—Eric
> On Feb 20, 2017, at 6:08 PM, Dave Neuman wrote:
>
I think you are asking "Why not get everything into 2.0?"
There are currently 20 open PRs and I know I don't have time to get through
them all. That being said, there are some out there that I would like to
see make it to 2.0, so I will try to get them tested and merged in the next
couple days.
Th
It was mainly about JvD’s comment that he wants to get changes into 2.1. It
seemed like he was waiting.
—Eric
> On Feb 21, 2017, at 8:42 AM, Dave Neuman wrote:
>
> I think you are asking "Why not get everything into 2.0?"
> There are currently 20 open PRs and I know I don't have time to get t
I thought we didn’t want to muddy 2.0 with big new features and / or changes.
That’s why I’m waiting.
Rgds,
JvD
> On Feb 21, 2017, at 7:42 AM, Eric Friedrich (efriedri)
> wrote:
>
> It was mainly about JvD’s comment that he wants to get changes into 2.1. It
> seemed like he was waiting.
>
Yeah, we've done a lot of Postgres testing against the master branch. I'm
afraid if Jan drops his PR in it will nullify a lot of that testing (as his
changes are pretty extensive). So my preference would be to create a 2.0
branch very soon (in a couple of days like Neuman said?) which should give
e
