Ted Yu 2012-09-06, 17:48
Todd Lipcon 2012-09-06, 17:50
Ted Yu 2012-09-06, 18:03
Todd Lipcon 2012-09-06, 18:26
Stack 2012-09-06, 19:31
Ted Yu 2012-09-06, 19:32
-Re: Porting policy from 0.94 to 0.92
Todd Lipcon 2012-09-06, 19:39
On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 12:32 PM, Ted Yu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The same principal should guide 0.94.x, right ?
Since 0.96.0 hasn't been released yet, I'm more OK with putting minor
features in 0.94.x, considering it is the "bleeding edge" release.
It would be nice to formalize some of these rules/guidelines/whatever
in a document. Ted -- since you seem interested, maybe you can write
up a proposal for us to discuss and even vote on?
> On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 12:31 PM, Stack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 11:03 AM, Ted Yu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > Thanks for your comment, Todd.
>> > I have observed some flexibility in this regard from, say cdh3u4a:
>> Irrelevant. Off-topic. Probably info. that doesn't belong on a
>> public list (Also of a kind that matches specious argument made at
>> tail of HBASE-6726 where a feature in production on different branches
>> somehow makes it so its stable in a different branch).
>> +1 on Todd's original sentiment (He beat me too it); bug-fixes only in
>> old branches especially the higher the point version.
Software Engineer, Cloudera
Stack 2012-09-06, 19:38