I agree with Stephan. +1 for merging it after forking 1.2 off and trying to
do this in the near future.
Cheers,
Till
On Fri, Dec 9, 2016 at 11:50 AM, Stephan Ewen wrote:
> I would be +1 to merge the FLIP-6 branch to the master branch after the 1.2
> branch is forked off, if we manage to do that
I would be +1 to merge the FLIP-6 branch to the master branch after the 1.2
branch is forked off, if we manage to do that in a timely fashion.
Would actually be safer that way...
On Tue, Dec 6, 2016 at 8:49 PM, Robert Metzger wrote:
> I've reactivated the 1.2 release thread and the actual list
I've reactivated the 1.2 release thread and the actual list of release
blockers is quite short as it seems.
We could actually manage to fork off a branch for the 1.2 release next week
(this really depends on how fast we get the blockers down)
Would it be okay for the people working on "flip-6" to w
Hi Greg!
Yes, originally I was arguing to merge Flip-6 after forking off the 1.2
branch. That would be the preferable solution, but since it seems that the
1.2 branch may still take a few weeks, I was thinking that we may want to
do that earlier.
Many flip-6 contributors would like to be active a
Hi Stephan,
How soon are you expecting the "release-1.2" fork? I am sure you have
considered merging the FLIP-6 branch after the fork.
Do we anticipate the new tests pushing Flink over Travis CI's new 50 minute
limit? This might be a good opportunity to rebalance the test ranges as the
most recen
