+1 for including docs in the release Anthony
> On Oct 4, 2016, at 11:52 AM, Swapnil Bawaskar <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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 >>> >> >>
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
