Home | About | Sematext search-lucene.com search-hadoop.com
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
 Search Hadoop and all its subprojects:

Switch to Threaded View
Accumulo >> mail # dev >> CHANGES file for 1.6.0-RC5


Copy link to this message
-
CHANGES file for 1.6.0-RC5
All,

Mike had an objection to the inclusion of 1.4.0 and 1.5.0 changes in
the CHANGES file for 1.6.0.
That objection was based on his understanding of a previous thread.
I'm not sure there was ever consensus on what to do, and I had a
different understanding of the results of that thread. I'd like to
resolve this with extreme haste.

Background:

The current 1.6.0-RC CHANGES have included 1.4.0, and 1.5.0, and
1.6.0, with the expectation that 1.6.1 would contain all those, plus
1.6.1, and 1.6.2 would contain all those, plus 1.6.2 changes, etc.
This fits with how we are currently labeling things in JIRA.
However, we could just as easily drop 1.4.0 and 1.5.0 changes from the
file, and it still matches what we're doing in JIRA. This is what
happened with 1.5.0.

So, which do we do? a or b:

a) include 1.4.0, 1.5.0
b) do not include 1.4.0, 1.5.0

Additionally, should we (c or d):

c) include sub-tasks
d) do not include sub-tasks

I'll update the CHANGES for RC5 according to the majority view from
this discussion at the time I prep RC5 (probably tomorrow morning).
I lean towards (b) and (d), but don't feel very strongly. I just don't
want to see a released blocked on this file.

Christopher L Tubbs II
http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii

 
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