[DISCUSS] Bigtop 0.3.1: target release date, supported platforms, bill of materials

[Roman Shaposhnik <rv...@apache.org>]

Changing this into a [DISCUSS] thread to not confuse the vote.

On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 11:07 AM, Konstantin Boudnik <co...@apache.org> wrote:
> That'd be awesome, Alan.
>
> We have a couple of sound BOM update proposals, so I will restart the vote
> once I hear from you on these 2 components.

I'm also curious about the list of supported platforms (and I admit this is
an open ended policy question, rather than anything else): what do
we, as a community, want the overlap between Bigtop 0.3.0 and
Bigtop 0.3.1 supported platforms be? Or is that even an issue?


Thanks,
Roman.

Re: [DISCUSS] Bigtop 0.3.1: target release date, supported platforms, bill of materials

[Bruno Mahé <bm...@apache.org>]

On 08/29/2012 10:20 AM, Konstantin Boudnik wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 06:01PM, Roman Shaposhnik wrote:
>> Changing this into a [DISCUSS] thread to not confuse the vote.
>>
>> On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 11:07 AM, Konstantin Boudnik <co...@apache.org> wrote:
>>> That'd be awesome, Alan.
>>>
>>> We have a couple of sound BOM update proposals, so I will restart the vote
>>> once I hear from you on these 2 components.
>>
>> I'm also curious about the list of supported platforms (and I admit this is
>> an open ended policy question, rather than anything else): what do
>> we, as a community, want the overlap between Bigtop 0.3.0 and
>> Bigtop 0.3.1 supported platforms be? Or is that even an issue?
>
> A continuation of this logic would lead to preventing new major release of
> comprising components from going into a maintenance release, would it not?
>
> Which is perfectly fine with me, btw. I want to undestand what our release
> principles are:
>    - major release includes
>          new major versions of the components/new components
>          new versions of supported OSes/new OSes
>    - maintenance release includes
>          minor and subminor versions of the components/no new components
>          same set of supported OSes
>
> If this seems like a reasonable rule of thumb - let me reshape the BOM
> accordingly e.g. put Fedora 15 instead of Fedora 16.
>
> Cos
>

+1
This makes sense.
But I would also be interested in hearing about it from people using or 
planning or using such release for their deployments such as the people 
behind the MTG distribution. I don't want to make their work more 
complicated.

Re: [DISCUSS] Bigtop 0.3.1: target release date, supported platforms, bill of materials

[Konstantin Boudnik <co...@apache.org>]

On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 06:01PM, Roman Shaposhnik wrote:
> Changing this into a [DISCUSS] thread to not confuse the vote.
> 
> On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 11:07 AM, Konstantin Boudnik <co...@apache.org> wrote:
> > That'd be awesome, Alan.
> >
> > We have a couple of sound BOM update proposals, so I will restart the vote
> > once I hear from you on these 2 components.
> 
> I'm also curious about the list of supported platforms (and I admit this is
> an open ended policy question, rather than anything else): what do
> we, as a community, want the overlap between Bigtop 0.3.0 and
> Bigtop 0.3.1 supported platforms be? Or is that even an issue?

A continuation of this logic would lead to preventing new major release of
comprising components from going into a maintenance release, would it not?

Which is perfectly fine with me, btw. I want to undestand what our release
principles are:
  - major release includes
        new major versions of the components/new components
        new versions of supported OSes/new OSes
  - maintenance release includes
        minor and subminor versions of the components/no new components
        same set of supported OSes

If this seems like a reasonable rule of thumb - let me reshape the BOM
accordingly e.g. put Fedora 15 instead of Fedora 16.

Cos