You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@storm.apache.org by "P. Taylor Goetz" <pt...@gmail.com> on 2016/10/04 17:24:45 UTC
[DISCUSS] Receiving branch(es) for storm-jms
The IP Clearance for storm-jms has passed and we are clear to import the code.
What branches do we want it to land in?
My initial thoughts are master, 1.x and 1.0.x., but I’m curious to hear others’ thoughts.
-Taylor
Re: [DISCUSS] Receiving branch(es) for storm-jms
Posted by "P. Taylor Goetz" <pt...@gmail.com>.
Thanks for the input. I’ll start with master and follow up with the other branches.
-Taylor
> On Oct 5, 2016, at 3:05 AM, Satish Duggana <sa...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> +1 for master, 1.x and 1.0.x as suggested by Taylor.
>
> Thanks,
> Satish.
>
> On Wed, Oct 5, 2016 at 2:00 AM, Jungtaek Lim <ka...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> For me master and 1.x would be good places to land, given that we are
>> planning to release 1.1.0 soon.
>>
>> - Jungtaek Lim (HeartSaVioR)
>> On Wed, 5 Oct 2016 at 2:34 AM Bobby Evans <ev...@yahoo-inc.com.invalid>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> +1 on those. Not sure if 1.0.x is the best place as it is a new feature
>>> (but it is separate from storm-core so I am OK with it) - Bobby
>>>
>>> On Tuesday, October 4, 2016 12:24 PM, P. Taylor Goetz <
>>> ptgoetz@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> The IP Clearance for storm-jms has passed and we are clear to import the
>>> code.
>>>
>>> What branches do we want it to land in?
>>>
>>> My initial thoughts are master, 1.x and 1.0.x., but I’m curious to hear
>>> others’ thoughts.
>>>
>>> -Taylor
>>>
>>>
>>
Re: [DISCUSS] Receiving branch(es) for storm-jms
Posted by Satish Duggana <sa...@gmail.com>.
+1 for master, 1.x and 1.0.x as suggested by Taylor.
Thanks,
Satish.
On Wed, Oct 5, 2016 at 2:00 AM, Jungtaek Lim <ka...@gmail.com> wrote:
> For me master and 1.x would be good places to land, given that we are
> planning to release 1.1.0 soon.
>
> - Jungtaek Lim (HeartSaVioR)
> On Wed, 5 Oct 2016 at 2:34 AM Bobby Evans <ev...@yahoo-inc.com.invalid>
> wrote:
>
> > +1 on those. Not sure if 1.0.x is the best place as it is a new feature
> > (but it is separate from storm-core so I am OK with it) - Bobby
> >
> > On Tuesday, October 4, 2016 12:24 PM, P. Taylor Goetz <
> > ptgoetz@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > The IP Clearance for storm-jms has passed and we are clear to import the
> > code.
> >
> > What branches do we want it to land in?
> >
> > My initial thoughts are master, 1.x and 1.0.x., but I’m curious to hear
> > others’ thoughts.
> >
> > -Taylor
> >
> >
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Receiving branch(es) for storm-jms
Posted by Jungtaek Lim <ka...@gmail.com>.
For me master and 1.x would be good places to land, given that we are
planning to release 1.1.0 soon.
- Jungtaek Lim (HeartSaVioR)
On Wed, 5 Oct 2016 at 2:34 AM Bobby Evans <ev...@yahoo-inc.com.invalid>
wrote:
> +1 on those. Not sure if 1.0.x is the best place as it is a new feature
> (but it is separate from storm-core so I am OK with it) - Bobby
>
> On Tuesday, October 4, 2016 12:24 PM, P. Taylor Goetz <
> ptgoetz@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> The IP Clearance for storm-jms has passed and we are clear to import the
> code.
>
> What branches do we want it to land in?
>
> My initial thoughts are master, 1.x and 1.0.x., but I’m curious to hear
> others’ thoughts.
>
> -Taylor
>
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Receiving branch(es) for storm-jms
Posted by Bobby Evans <ev...@yahoo-inc.com.INVALID>.
+1 on those. Not sure if 1.0.x is the best place as it is a new feature (but it is separate from storm-core so I am OK with it) - Bobby
On Tuesday, October 4, 2016 12:24 PM, P. Taylor Goetz <pt...@gmail.com> wrote:
The IP Clearance for storm-jms has passed and we are clear to import the code.
What branches do we want it to land in?
My initial thoughts are master, 1.x and 1.0.x., but I’m curious to hear others’ thoughts.
-Taylor