This sounds like feature creep, but based on this thread: http://markmail.org/message/fwfslt2s7yl7mqm4 do we want to target GEODE-1952 <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GEODE-1952> for 1.0?
On Sat, Oct 1, 2016 at 12:30 AM, Swapnil Bawaskar <[email protected]> wrote: > Thanks for the offer Anthony, > I tagged GEODE-17 / GEODE-1570 to be fixed in 1.0 and I removed the 1.0 > tag from GEODE-1793 so that open JIRA issues for 1.0 [1] should now be > accurate. > > I have also cut a branch release/1.0.0-incubating from develop on commit > abef045179e5d805cb04bc55a77a82798becdaae for the 1.0 release. Please make > sure that only issues targeted for 1.0 are fixed on that branch. If you are > using git flow, use git flow release track 1.0.0-incubating for switching > to the new branch. > > > Thanks! > > [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 > > On Fri, Sep 30, 2016 at 11:30 AM, William Markito <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> +1 >> >> On Fri, Sep 30, 2016 at 9:16 AM, Kenneth Howe <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> > +1 >> > >> > > On Sep 29, 2016, at 2:31 PM, Jacob Barrett <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> > > >> > > +1 for creating branch now to prevent feature creep. >> > > >> > > On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 2:10 PM Kirk Lund <[email protected]> wrote: >> > > >> > >> 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 >> > >>> >> > >>> >> > >> >> > >> > >> >> >> -- >> >> ~/William >> > >
