+1, seems to be a very sane thing to do On Tue, 29 Sep 2015 at 12:20 Till Rohrmann <trohrm...@apache.org> wrote:
> +1 for 0.10 > > On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 12:12 PM, Stephan Ewen <se...@apache.org> wrote: > > > +1 here as well > > > > On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 12:03 PM, Fabian Hueske <fhue...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > > +1 for moving directly to 0.10. > > > > > > 2015-09-29 11:40 GMT+02:00 Maximilian Michels <m...@apache.org>: > > > > > > > Hi Kostas, > > > > > > > > I think it makes sense to cancel the proposed 0.10-milestone release. > > > > We are not far away from completing all essential features of the > 0.10 > > > > release. After we manage to complete those, we can test and release > > > > 0.10. > > > > > > > > The 0.10 release will be a major step towards the 1.0 release and, > > > > therefore, all new features of 0.10 should get enough exposure until > > > > we release 1.0. > > > > > > > > Cheers, > > > > Max > > > > > > > > On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 11:26 AM, Kostas Tzoumas < > ktzou...@apache.org> > > > > wrote: > > > > > Hi everyone, > > > > > > > > > > I would like to propose to cancel the 0.10-milestone release and go > > > > > directly for a 0.10 release as soon as possible. > > > > > > > > > > My opinion would be to focus this release on: > > > > > - Graduating the streaming API out of staging (depends on some open > > > pull > > > > > requests) > > > > > - Master high availability > > > > > - New monitoring framework > > > > > - Graduating Gelly out of staging > > > > > > > > > > Flink 1.0 will probably come after 0.10, which gives us time to fix > > > open > > > > > issues and freeze APIs. > > > > > > > > > > What do you think? > > > > > > > > > > Best, > > > > > Kostas > > > > > > > > > >
