+1 on Jun's defn.
On Tue, Jul 2, 2013 at 10:21 PM, Jun Rao <jun...@gmail.com> wrote: > My vote is that a patch can go into 0.8 if (1) it fixes a critical issue or > (2) the change is trivial and it makes the 0.8 experience better (e.g., > improving log4j readability). kafka-946 may fall into (2). > > Thanks, > > Jun > > > On Tue, Jul 2, 2013 at 7:34 PM, Joe Stein <crypt...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > << How about for now: by default we will not incorporate fixes into 0.8 > > unless there is a compelling argument (e.g., regression/clear bug with no > > good workaround) to do so. > > > > +1 > > > > > > On Tue, Jul 2, 2013 at 8:48 PM, Joel Koshy <jjkosh...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > Good question. Some fixes are clearly critical (e.g., consumer > > > deadlocks) that would impact everyone and need to go into 0.8. > > > Unfortunately the criticality of most other fixes is subjective and > > > I'm not sure how feasible it is to develop a global criteria. It > > > probably needs to be determined through consensus whether it needs to > > > go into 0.8 or not. How about for now: by default we will not > > > incorporate fixes into 0.8 unless there is a compelling argument > > > (e.g., regression/clear bug with no good workaround) to do so. > > > > > > Joel > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Jul 2, 2013 at 5:11 PM, Jay Kreps <jay.kr...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > What should the criteria for fixes on 0.8 be? This seems like a > > > reasonable > > > > candidate but I don't think we discussed what we would be taking so I > > > > thought I would ask... > > > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/KAFKA-946 > > > > > > > > -Jay > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > /* > > Joe Stein > > http://www.linkedin.com/in/charmalloc > > Twitter: @allthingshadoop <http://www.twitter.com/allthingshadoop> > > */ > > >
