+1 on Jun's defn.
On Tue, Jul 2, 2013 at 10:21 PM, Jun Rao 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,
>
>
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 wrote:
> << How about for now: b
<< 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 wrote:
> Good question. Some fixes are clearly critical (e.g., consumer
> d
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
