Ismael, Fair enough, I guess it doesn't matter if we're going to merge again -- then until we decide to branch we'll be back in sync. At the moment there's a pretty major diff between trunk and 0.10.0 and I'm not sure what went on only trunk and what went to 0.10.0 only. As long as the latter set is empty, then I guess we're ok not testing both for the moment.
-Ewen On Mon, Apr 4, 2016 at 10:08 AM, Guozhang Wang <wangg...@gmail.com> wrote: > Are there any commits that is only for 0.10.0 but not for trunk? > > Guozhang > > On Mon, Apr 4, 2016 at 4:24 AM, Ismael Juma <ism...@juma.me.uk> wrote: > > > Hi Ewen, > > > > Do you mean issues related to versions (since that should be the only > > difference between trunk and 0.10.0)? > > > > Ismael > > > > On Mon, Apr 4, 2016 at 4:07 AM, Ewen Cheslack-Postava <e...@confluent.io > > > > wrote: > > > > > Just wanted to throw it out there that still double committing when the > > > committer remembers to do so is useful -- daily updates on unit tests > (as > > > flaky as they can be) and system tests are still useful to have. Better > > to > > > catch any branch-specific issues as early as possible. > > > > > > -Ewen > > > > > > On Fri, Apr 1, 2016 at 1:06 PM, Guozhang Wang <wangg...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > > > > > Sounds good. > > > > > > > > On Fri, Apr 1, 2016 at 12:01 PM, Gwen Shapira <g...@confluent.io> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > I like the alternative. I'll be happy to do the weekly merges. > > > > > > > > > > Would be happy to hear other opinions. > > > > > > > > > > Gwen > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Apr 1, 2016 at 11:55 AM, Ismael Juma <isma...@gmail.com> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > My concern is that this is error-prone and things can be missed > (it > > > > > > happened during the 0.9.0.0 release for example). It's a cost > worth > > > > > paying > > > > > > when stabilising but not so clear when accepting major new > > features. > > > > > > > > > > > > One alternative would be to just commit to trunk and merge trunk > to > > > > > 0.10.0 > > > > > > weekly or something along those lines. > > > > > > > > > > > > Guozhang, we could delete the branch, but users could be relying > on > > > it > > > > > and > > > > > > hence I am not sure we should do that. > > > > > > > > > > > > Ismael > > > > > > On 1 Apr 2016 19:44, "Gwen Shapira" <g...@confluent.io> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > I prefer keeping the current branch and double-committing for > > three > > > > > > weeks. > > > > > > > Not fun, but not end-of-world hard. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Unless committers object? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Apr 1, 2016 at 11:40 AM, Guozhang Wang < > > wangg...@gmail.com > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ismael, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Shall we "delete" the 0.10.0 branch after going through its > > > commits > > > > > and > > > > > > > > making sure all of them are already in trunk then? I think it > > is > > > > > doable > > > > > > > in > > > > > > > > github? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Guozhang > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Apr 1, 2016 at 11:24 AM, Jason Gustafson < > > > > ja...@confluent.io > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hey Gwen, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > KIP-52 would be nice to get in as well. It's a small > feature, > > > but > > > > > > > really > > > > > > > > > helpful for Connect users. A patch for the first half is > > > already > > > > > > > > available, > > > > > > > > > though it may need adjustment depending on the discussion. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > > > > Jason > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Apr 1, 2016 at 11:09 AM, Ismael Juma < > > > ism...@juma.me.uk> > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Gwen, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What is the plan for the 0.10.0 branch? Double-committing > > > > seems a > > > > > > bit > > > > > > > > > > wasteful given this change. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ismael > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 1 Apr 2016 18:54, "Gwen Shapira" <g...@confluent.io> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hey Team Kafka, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Per community discussion, I will not be rolling out a > new > > > > > > candidate > > > > > > > > on > > > > > > > > > > > Monday. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I will roll out the next release candidate in three > > weeks: > > > > > > Friday, > > > > > > > > > April > > > > > > > > > > > 22. > > > > > > > > > > > We can spend Kafka Summit discussing the quality of the > > > > release > > > > > > :) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The goal is to get it the following improvements: > > > > > > > > > > > KIP-4-metadata-update > > > > > > > > > > > KIP-35 (version protocol) > > > > > > > > > > > KIP-33 (time-based indexes) > > > > > > > > > > > KIP-43 (flexible SASL) > > > > > > > > > > > KIP-50 (Tiny ACL API change) > > > > > > > > > > > KIP-51 (small KafkaConnect API change) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Committers and contributors: Please stay on top of > > reviews > > > > and > > > > > > > > > > discussions. > > > > > > > > > > > Lets keep the awesome forward momentum we have going! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yours, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Gwen Shapira > > > > > > > > > > > Temporary Release Manager > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > > -- Guozhang > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > -- Guozhang > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > Thanks, > > > Ewen > > > > > > > > > -- > -- Guozhang > -- Thanks, Ewen
