I think we should propose creating that release branch sooner (now?) so we can minimize unplanned changes slipping into 1.0 and destabilizing it.
-Kirk On Thursday, September 29, 2016, Anthony Baker <[email protected]> wrote: > Using the gitflow approach, we cut a release/1.0.0 branch to isolate the > release branch from ongoing development. For past releases we have waited > as long as possible to cut the branch to minimize overhead. Perhaps this > time we should create the branch earlier. > > JIRA shows the open issues for 1.0.0 [1] but there are some deltas > compared to the last release scope email [2]. > > GEODE-17 / GEODE-1570 was mentioned as a possible candidate for 1.0.0 but > the Fix Version is not set > GEODE-1168 was not included in the 1.0.0 scope discussions but Fix Version > is set to 1.0.0 > GEODE-1914 is follow on work from the package namespace changes > > @Swapnil, does this accurately reflect the scope discussions for 1.0.0? > If so, I can update the bugs. > > Anthony > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=project%20% > 3D%20GEODE%20AND%20fixVersion%20%3D%201.0.0-incubating% > 20AND%20resolution%20%3D%20Unresolved%20ORDER%20BY% > 20due%20ASC%2C%20priority%20DESC%2C%20created%20ASC > > [2] http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-geode- > dev/201609.mbox/%3cCANZq1gBzMTEM_JHzw2YT_LZeC5g472XkNCfJhma76xah=Yyq6A@ > mail.gmail.com%3e > > > > On Sep 29, 2016, at 1:02 PM, Kirk Lund <[email protected] <javascript:;>> > wrote: > > > > What changes are we still waiting on to cut the next RC of Geode 1.0? > > > > Is there a way to create a branch for Geode 1.0 develop that allows folks > > to continue working on post-1.0 features or bug fixes without > destabilizing > > Geode 1.0? This way, only the necessary changes for Geode 1.0 would go to > > the 1.0 branch? > > > > -Kirk > >
