CHANGES file for 1.6.0-RC5

[Christopher <ct...@apache.org>]

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

Re: CHANGES file for 1.6.0-RC5

[Christopher <ct...@apache.org>]

Alright, it looks like the general view is (b) omit 1.4.0 and 1.5.0
changes, and (c) include sub-tasks.

Sean also commented that he'd prefer sub-tasks to be listed last. I'd
also prefer this, if we are going to include them. However, in the
interests of copy/paste convenience, which allows me to see diffs more
easily, I'm going to favor the order that is generated by JIRA, if
that's okay.

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


On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 11:19 PM, Mike Drob <ma...@cloudera.com> wrote:
> +1 b
> +0 c
>
>
> On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 10:02 PM, John Vines <vi...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> +1 b
>> +0 c
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 9:48 PM, Bill Havanki <bhavanki@clouderagovt.com
>> >wrote:
>>
>> > b, and prefer c over d but not overly so
>> >
>> >
>> > On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 7:45 PM, Sean Busbey <bu...@cloudera.com>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > > B and C (though I would like subtasks to be listed last)
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 6:41 PM, Josh Elser <jo...@gmail.com>
>> > wrote:
>> > >
>> > > > b, please.
>> > > >
>> > > > I would lean towards C over D as I think that's what we've done
>> > > > previously, but I do not have strong feelings either way.
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > On 4/28/14, 7:29 PM, Christopher wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > >> 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
>> > > >>
>> > > >>
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > --
>> > > Sean
>> > >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > // Bill Havanki
>> > // Solutions Architect, Cloudera Govt Solutions
>> > // 443.686.9283
>> >
>>

Re: CHANGES file for 1.6.0-RC5

[Mike Drob <ma...@cloudera.com>]

+1 b
+0 c


On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 10:02 PM, John Vines <vi...@apache.org> wrote:

> +1 b
> +0 c
>
>
> On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 9:48 PM, Bill Havanki <bhavanki@clouderagovt.com
> >wrote:
>
> > b, and prefer c over d but not overly so
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 7:45 PM, Sean Busbey <bu...@cloudera.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > > B and C (though I would like subtasks to be listed last)
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 6:41 PM, Josh Elser <jo...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > > b, please.
> > > >
> > > > I would lean towards C over D as I think that's what we've done
> > > > previously, but I do not have strong feelings either way.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On 4/28/14, 7:29 PM, Christopher wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> 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
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Sean
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > // Bill Havanki
> > // Solutions Architect, Cloudera Govt Solutions
> > // 443.686.9283
> >
>

Re: CHANGES file for 1.6.0-RC5

[John Vines <vi...@apache.org>]

+1 b
+0 c


On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 9:48 PM, Bill Havanki <bh...@clouderagovt.com>wrote:

> b, and prefer c over d but not overly so
>
>
> On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 7:45 PM, Sean Busbey <bu...@cloudera.com> wrote:
>
> > B and C (though I would like subtasks to be listed last)
> >
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 6:41 PM, Josh Elser <jo...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > > b, please.
> > >
> > > I would lean towards C over D as I think that's what we've done
> > > previously, but I do not have strong feelings either way.
> > >
> > >
> > > On 4/28/14, 7:29 PM, Christopher wrote:
> > >
> > >> 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
> > >>
> > >>
> >
> >
> > --
> > Sean
> >
>
>
>
> --
> // Bill Havanki
> // Solutions Architect, Cloudera Govt Solutions
> // 443.686.9283
>

Re: CHANGES file for 1.6.0-RC5

[Bill Havanki <bh...@clouderagovt.com>]

b, and prefer c over d but not overly so


On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 7:45 PM, Sean Busbey <bu...@cloudera.com> wrote:

> B and C (though I would like subtasks to be listed last)
>
>
>
> On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 6:41 PM, Josh Elser <jo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > b, please.
> >
> > I would lean towards C over D as I think that's what we've done
> > previously, but I do not have strong feelings either way.
> >
> >
> > On 4/28/14, 7:29 PM, Christopher wrote:
> >
> >> 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
> >>
> >>
>
>
> --
> Sean
>



-- 
// Bill Havanki
// Solutions Architect, Cloudera Govt Solutions
// 443.686.9283

Re: CHANGES file for 1.6.0-RC5

[Sean Busbey <bu...@cloudera.com>]

B and C (though I would like subtasks to be listed last)



On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 6:41 PM, Josh Elser <jo...@gmail.com> wrote:

> b, please.
>
> I would lean towards C over D as I think that's what we've done
> previously, but I do not have strong feelings either way.
>
>
> On 4/28/14, 7:29 PM, Christopher wrote:
>
>> 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
>>
>>


-- 
Sean

Re: CHANGES file for 1.6.0-RC5

[Josh Elser <jo...@gmail.com>]

b, please.

I would lean towards C over D as I think that's what we've done 
previously, but I do not have strong feelings either way.

On 4/28/14, 7:29 PM, Christopher wrote:
> 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
>