Re: [DISCUSS] Flume 1.7 release plan

[Balazs Donat Bessenyei <be...@cloudera.com>]

Hi All,

Thank you for all the feedback and responses.

Regarding the open tickets, I had something similar to Mike's idea in
mind: we review the tickets and if there's nothing blocking a release,
we reschedule the unresolved ones for 1.8 or so.

I agree that we should have more frequent releases. Aiming for
something quarterly sounds like a good thing.


Thank you,

Donat


On Fri, Sep 30, 2016 at 8:01 PM, Saikat Kanjilal <sx...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> I'd be willing to help, I've been heads down on other stuff and have had to postpone the graph sink implementation (https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLUME-2035) but am looking to resume work and targeting an initial implementation by mid November sometime.  In the meantime let me know how I can get more deeply involved in the next release.
>
>
> Regards
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Ralph Goers <ra...@dslextreme.com>
> Sent: Friday, September 30, 2016 10:15 AM
> To: dev@flume.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Flume 1.7 release plan
>
> FWIW, missing the train wouldn't be that big a deal if you knew the next release wouldn't be too far out.  A release a quarter would be a nice target.
>
> Ralph
>
>> On Sep 30, 2016, at 8:36 AM, Mike Percy <mp...@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Sep 30, 2016 at 2:13 PM, Denes Arvay <de...@cloudera.com> wrote:
>>
>>> What are your plans regarding to the mentioned 18 issues in patch available
>>> state? Should we decide on a one-by-one basis whether we'd like to include
>>> in the release or should we reschedule all of them to a next release?
>>>
>>
>> I'd personally recommend committing whatever is ready and reasonably
>> low-risk, and whatever doesn't make the deadline should "miss the train"
>> unless it's a particularly critical issue. This approach has worked well
>> for me in the past.
>>
>> Best,
>> Mike
>
>