Inline.

On Thu, Apr 9, 2015 at 11:48 AM, Vinod Kumar Vavilapalli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> I feel like we haven't done a great job of maintaining the previous 2.x
> releases. Seeing as how long 2.7.0 release has taken, I am sure we will
> spend more time stabilizing it, fixing issues etc.
>
> I propose that we immediately follow up 2.7.0 with a 2.7.1 within 2-3
> weeks. The focus obviously is to have blocker issues, bug-fixes and *no*
> features.
+1. Having a 2.7.2/2.7.3 to continue stabilizing is also appealing. Would
greatly help folks who upgrade to later releases for major bug fixes
instead of the new and shiny features.

> Improvements are going to be slightly hard to reason about, but I
> propose limiting ourselves to very small improvements, if at all.
>

I would avoid any improvements unless they are to fix severe regressions -
performance or otherwise. I guess they become blockers in that case. So,
yeah, I suggest no improvements at all.
>
> The other area of concern with the previous releases had been
> compatibility. With help from Li Lu, I got jdiff reinstated in branch-2
> (though patches are not yet in), and did a pass. In the unavoidable event
> that we find incompatibilities with 2.7.0, we can fix those in 2.7.1 and
> promote that to be the stable release.
>

Sounds reasonable.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> Thanks,+Vinod
>

--
Karthik Kambatla
Software Engineer, Cloudera Inc.
--------------------------------------------
http://five.sentenc.es
NEW: Monitor These Apps!
elasticsearch, apache solr, apache hbase, hadoop, redis, casssandra, amazon cloudwatch, mysql, memcached, apache kafka, apache zookeeper, apache storm, ubuntu, centOS, red hat, debian, puppet labs, java, senseiDB