You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@geode.apache.org by Kirk Lund <kl...@apache.org> on 2016/09/29 20:02:12 UTC

Limiting scope for Geode 1.0

What changes are we still waiting on to cut the next RC of Geode 1.0?

Is there a way to create a branch for Geode 1.0 develop that allows folks
to continue working on post-1.0 features or bug fixes without destabilizing
Geode 1.0? This way, only the necessary changes for Geode 1.0 would go to
the 1.0 branch?

-Kirk

Re: Limiting scope for Geode 1.0

Posted by Kirk Lund <kl...@pivotal.io>.
+1 for skipping flakyTest on release branch and merging
8929e93bd129b303aae8f9e1b13daf3c3991d1a4


On Tue, Oct 4, 2016 at 12:16 PM, Anthony Baker <ab...@pivotal.io> wrote:

> I’d like merge 8929e93bd129b303aae8f9e1b13daf3c3991d1a4 to the release
> branch.  It contains only test changes.  Sound reasonable?
>
> Also in that vein, what do you think about not running flakyTest in the
> Jenkins release job [1].  That would give us a clearer picture of test
> results and quality on the release branch.
>
> We should continue to run flakyTest in the nightly Jenkins job.
>
> Anthony
>
> [1] https://builds.apache.org/job/Geode-release/
>
>
> > On Oct 1, 2016, at 12:30 AM, Swapnil Bawaskar <sb...@pivotal.io>
> wrote:
> >
> > Thanks for the offer Anthony,
> > I tagged GEODE-17 / GEODE-1570 to be fixed in 1.0 and I removed the 1.0
> tag
> > from GEODE-1793 so that open JIRA issues for 1.0 [1] should now be
> accurate.
> >
> > I have also cut a branch release/1.0.0-incubating from develop on commit
> > abef045179e5d805cb04bc55a77a82798becdaae for the 1.0 release. Please
> make
> > sure that only issues targeted for 1.0 are fixed on that branch. If you
> are
> > using git flow, use git flow release track 1.0.0-incubating for switching
> > to the new branch.
> >
> >
> > Thanks!
> >
> > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=project%20%
> > 3D%20GEODE%20AND%20fixVersion%20%3D%201.0.0-incubating%
> > 20AND%20resolution%20%3D%20Unresolved%20ORDER%20BY%
> > 20due%20ASC%2C%20priority%20DESC%2C%20created%20ASC
> >
> > On Fri, Sep 30, 2016 at 11:30 AM, William Markito <wm...@pivotal.io>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> +1
> >>
> >> On Fri, Sep 30, 2016 at 9:16 AM, Kenneth Howe <kh...@pivotal.io> wrote:
> >>
> >>> +1
> >>>
> >>>> On Sep 29, 2016, at 2:31 PM, Jacob Barrett <jb...@pivotal.io>
> >> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> +1 for creating branch now to prevent feature creep.
> >>>>
> >>>> On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 2:10 PM Kirk Lund <kl...@apache.org> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> I think we should propose creating that release branch sooner (now?)
> >> so
> >>> we
> >>>>> can minimize unplanned changes slipping into 1.0 and destabilizing
> it.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> -Kirk
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On Thursday, September 29, 2016, Anthony Baker <ab...@pivotal.io>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Using the gitflow approach, we cut a release/1.0.0 branch to isolate
> >>> the
> >>>>>> release branch from ongoing development.  For past releases we have
> >>>>> waited
> >>>>>> as long as possible to cut the branch to minimize overhead.  Perhaps
> >>> this
> >>>>>> time we should create the branch earlier.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> JIRA shows the open issues for 1.0.0 [1] but there are some deltas
> >>>>>> compared to the last release scope email [2].
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> GEODE-17 / GEODE-1570 was mentioned as a possible candidate for
> 1.0.0
> >>> but
> >>>>>> the Fix Version is not set
> >>>>>> GEODE-1168 was not included in the 1.0.0 scope discussions but Fix
> >>>>> Version
> >>>>>> is set to 1.0.0
> >>>>>> GEODE-1914 is follow on work from the package namespace changes
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> @Swapnil, does this accurately reflect the scope discussions for
> >> 1.0.0?
> >>>>>> If so, I can update the bugs.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Anthony
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=project%20%
> >>>>>> 3D%20GEODE%20AND%20fixVersion%20%3D%201.0.0-incubating%
> >>>>>> 20AND%20resolution%20%3D%20Unresolved%20ORDER%20BY%
> >>>>>> 20due%20ASC%2C%20priority%20DESC%2C%20created%20ASC
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> [2] http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-geode-
> >>>>>> dev/201609.mbox/%3cCANZq1gBzMTEM_JHzw2YT_
> >>> LZeC5g472XkNCfJhma76xah=Yyq6A@
> >>>>>> mail.gmail.com%3e
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> On Sep 29, 2016, at 1:02 PM, Kirk Lund <klund@apache.org
> >>>>> <javascript:;>>
> >>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> What changes are we still waiting on to cut the next RC of Geode
> >> 1.0?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Is there a way to create a branch for Geode 1.0 develop that allows
> >>>>> folks
> >>>>>>> to continue working on post-1.0 features or bug fixes without
> >>>>>> destabilizing
> >>>>>>> Geode 1.0? This way, only the necessary changes for Geode 1.0 would
> >> go
> >>>>> to
> >>>>>>> the 1.0 branch?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> -Kirk
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >>
> >> ~/William
> >>
>
>

Re: Limiting scope for Geode 1.0

Posted by Anilkumar Gingade <ag...@pivotal.io>.
If fixing flaky tests are not in the release plan, its a good idea to move
this from release job...As you said it helps to keep the run clean and
makes it easy to track unexpected failures.

-Anil.




On Wed, Oct 5, 2016 at 2:58 PM, Swapnil Bawaskar <sb...@pivotal.io>
wrote:

> Some of tests labeled flaky in 8929e93bd129b303aae8f9e1b13daf3c3991d1a4
> have since been fixed by Nabarun. I think we should reconcile this revision
> with Nabarun's.
>
> On Tue, Oct 4, 2016 at 12:16 PM, Anthony Baker <ab...@pivotal.io> wrote:
>
> > I’d like merge 8929e93bd129b303aae8f9e1b13daf3c3991d1a4 to the release
> > branch.  It contains only test changes.  Sound reasonable?
> >
> > Also in that vein, what do you think about not running flakyTest in the
> > Jenkins release job [1].  That would give us a clearer picture of test
> > results and quality on the release branch.
> >
> > We should continue to run flakyTest in the nightly Jenkins job.
> >
> > Anthony
> >
> > [1] https://builds.apache.org/job/Geode-release/
> >
> >
> > > On Oct 1, 2016, at 12:30 AM, Swapnil Bawaskar <sb...@pivotal.io>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Thanks for the offer Anthony,
> > > I tagged GEODE-17 / GEODE-1570 to be fixed in 1.0 and I removed the 1.0
> > tag
> > > from GEODE-1793 so that open JIRA issues for 1.0 [1] should now be
> > accurate.
> > >
> > > I have also cut a branch release/1.0.0-incubating from develop on
> commit
> > > abef045179e5d805cb04bc55a77a82798becdaae for the 1.0 release. Please
> > make
> > > sure that only issues targeted for 1.0 are fixed on that branch. If you
> > are
> > > using git flow, use git flow release track 1.0.0-incubating for
> switching
> > > to the new branch.
> > >
> > >
> > > Thanks!
> > >
> > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=project%20%
> > > 3D%20GEODE%20AND%20fixVersion%20%3D%201.0.0-incubating%
> > > 20AND%20resolution%20%3D%20Unresolved%20ORDER%20BY%
> > > 20due%20ASC%2C%20priority%20DESC%2C%20created%20ASC
> > >
> > > On Fri, Sep 30, 2016 at 11:30 AM, William Markito <wmarkito@pivotal.io
> >
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > >> +1
> > >>
> > >> On Fri, Sep 30, 2016 at 9:16 AM, Kenneth Howe <kh...@pivotal.io>
> wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> +1
> > >>>
> > >>>> On Sep 29, 2016, at 2:31 PM, Jacob Barrett <jb...@pivotal.io>
> > >> wrote:
> > >>>>
> > >>>> +1 for creating branch now to prevent feature creep.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 2:10 PM Kirk Lund <kl...@apache.org> wrote:
> > >>>>
> > >>>>> I think we should propose creating that release branch sooner
> (now?)
> > >> so
> > >>> we
> > >>>>> can minimize unplanned changes slipping into 1.0 and destabilizing
> > it.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> -Kirk
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> On Thursday, September 29, 2016, Anthony Baker <ab...@pivotal.io>
> > >>> wrote:
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>> Using the gitflow approach, we cut a release/1.0.0 branch to
> isolate
> > >>> the
> > >>>>>> release branch from ongoing development.  For past releases we
> have
> > >>>>> waited
> > >>>>>> as long as possible to cut the branch to minimize overhead.
> Perhaps
> > >>> this
> > >>>>>> time we should create the branch earlier.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> JIRA shows the open issues for 1.0.0 [1] but there are some deltas
> > >>>>>> compared to the last release scope email [2].
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> GEODE-17 / GEODE-1570 was mentioned as a possible candidate for
> > 1.0.0
> > >>> but
> > >>>>>> the Fix Version is not set
> > >>>>>> GEODE-1168 was not included in the 1.0.0 scope discussions but Fix
> > >>>>> Version
> > >>>>>> is set to 1.0.0
> > >>>>>> GEODE-1914 is follow on work from the package namespace changes
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> @Swapnil, does this accurately reflect the scope discussions for
> > >> 1.0.0?
> > >>>>>> If so, I can update the bugs.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> Anthony
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=project%20%
> > >>>>>> 3D%20GEODE%20AND%20fixVersion%20%3D%201.0.0-incubating%
> > >>>>>> 20AND%20resolution%20%3D%20Unresolved%20ORDER%20BY%
> > >>>>>> 20due%20ASC%2C%20priority%20DESC%2C%20created%20ASC
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> [2] http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-geode-
> > >>>>>> dev/201609.mbox/%3cCANZq1gBzMTEM_JHzw2YT_
> > >>> LZeC5g472XkNCfJhma76xah=Yyq6A@
> > >>>>>> mail.gmail.com%3e
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> On Sep 29, 2016, at 1:02 PM, Kirk Lund <klund@apache.org
> > >>>>> <javascript:;>>
> > >>>>>> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> What changes are we still waiting on to cut the next RC of Geode
> > >> 1.0?
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> Is there a way to create a branch for Geode 1.0 develop that
> allows
> > >>>>> folks
> > >>>>>>> to continue working on post-1.0 features or bug fixes without
> > >>>>>> destabilizing
> > >>>>>>> Geode 1.0? This way, only the necessary changes for Geode 1.0
> would
> > >> go
> > >>>>> to
> > >>>>>>> the 1.0 branch?
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> -Kirk
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> --
> > >>
> > >> ~/William
> > >>
> >
> >
>

Re: Limiting scope for Geode 1.0

Posted by Swapnil Bawaskar <sb...@pivotal.io>.
Some of tests labeled flaky in 8929e93bd129b303aae8f9e1b13daf3c3991d1a4
have since been fixed by Nabarun. I think we should reconcile this revision
with Nabarun's.

On Tue, Oct 4, 2016 at 12:16 PM, Anthony Baker <ab...@pivotal.io> wrote:

> I’d like merge 8929e93bd129b303aae8f9e1b13daf3c3991d1a4 to the release
> branch.  It contains only test changes.  Sound reasonable?
>
> Also in that vein, what do you think about not running flakyTest in the
> Jenkins release job [1].  That would give us a clearer picture of test
> results and quality on the release branch.
>
> We should continue to run flakyTest in the nightly Jenkins job.
>
> Anthony
>
> [1] https://builds.apache.org/job/Geode-release/
>
>
> > On Oct 1, 2016, at 12:30 AM, Swapnil Bawaskar <sb...@pivotal.io>
> wrote:
> >
> > Thanks for the offer Anthony,
> > I tagged GEODE-17 / GEODE-1570 to be fixed in 1.0 and I removed the 1.0
> tag
> > from GEODE-1793 so that open JIRA issues for 1.0 [1] should now be
> accurate.
> >
> > I have also cut a branch release/1.0.0-incubating from develop on commit
> > abef045179e5d805cb04bc55a77a82798becdaae for the 1.0 release. Please
> make
> > sure that only issues targeted for 1.0 are fixed on that branch. If you
> are
> > using git flow, use git flow release track 1.0.0-incubating for switching
> > to the new branch.
> >
> >
> > Thanks!
> >
> > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=project%20%
> > 3D%20GEODE%20AND%20fixVersion%20%3D%201.0.0-incubating%
> > 20AND%20resolution%20%3D%20Unresolved%20ORDER%20BY%
> > 20due%20ASC%2C%20priority%20DESC%2C%20created%20ASC
> >
> > On Fri, Sep 30, 2016 at 11:30 AM, William Markito <wm...@pivotal.io>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> +1
> >>
> >> On Fri, Sep 30, 2016 at 9:16 AM, Kenneth Howe <kh...@pivotal.io> wrote:
> >>
> >>> +1
> >>>
> >>>> On Sep 29, 2016, at 2:31 PM, Jacob Barrett <jb...@pivotal.io>
> >> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> +1 for creating branch now to prevent feature creep.
> >>>>
> >>>> On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 2:10 PM Kirk Lund <kl...@apache.org> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> I think we should propose creating that release branch sooner (now?)
> >> so
> >>> we
> >>>>> can minimize unplanned changes slipping into 1.0 and destabilizing
> it.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> -Kirk
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On Thursday, September 29, 2016, Anthony Baker <ab...@pivotal.io>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Using the gitflow approach, we cut a release/1.0.0 branch to isolate
> >>> the
> >>>>>> release branch from ongoing development.  For past releases we have
> >>>>> waited
> >>>>>> as long as possible to cut the branch to minimize overhead.  Perhaps
> >>> this
> >>>>>> time we should create the branch earlier.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> JIRA shows the open issues for 1.0.0 [1] but there are some deltas
> >>>>>> compared to the last release scope email [2].
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> GEODE-17 / GEODE-1570 was mentioned as a possible candidate for
> 1.0.0
> >>> but
> >>>>>> the Fix Version is not set
> >>>>>> GEODE-1168 was not included in the 1.0.0 scope discussions but Fix
> >>>>> Version
> >>>>>> is set to 1.0.0
> >>>>>> GEODE-1914 is follow on work from the package namespace changes
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> @Swapnil, does this accurately reflect the scope discussions for
> >> 1.0.0?
> >>>>>> If so, I can update the bugs.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Anthony
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=project%20%
> >>>>>> 3D%20GEODE%20AND%20fixVersion%20%3D%201.0.0-incubating%
> >>>>>> 20AND%20resolution%20%3D%20Unresolved%20ORDER%20BY%
> >>>>>> 20due%20ASC%2C%20priority%20DESC%2C%20created%20ASC
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> [2] http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-geode-
> >>>>>> dev/201609.mbox/%3cCANZq1gBzMTEM_JHzw2YT_
> >>> LZeC5g472XkNCfJhma76xah=Yyq6A@
> >>>>>> mail.gmail.com%3e
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> On Sep 29, 2016, at 1:02 PM, Kirk Lund <klund@apache.org
> >>>>> <javascript:;>>
> >>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> What changes are we still waiting on to cut the next RC of Geode
> >> 1.0?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Is there a way to create a branch for Geode 1.0 develop that allows
> >>>>> folks
> >>>>>>> to continue working on post-1.0 features or bug fixes without
> >>>>>> destabilizing
> >>>>>>> Geode 1.0? This way, only the necessary changes for Geode 1.0 would
> >> go
> >>>>> to
> >>>>>>> the 1.0 branch?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> -Kirk
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >>
> >> ~/William
> >>
>
>

Re: Limiting scope for Geode 1.0

Posted by Anthony Baker <ab...@pivotal.io>.
I’d like merge 8929e93bd129b303aae8f9e1b13daf3c3991d1a4 to the release branch.  It contains only test changes.  Sound reasonable?

Also in that vein, what do you think about not running flakyTest in the Jenkins release job [1].  That would give us a clearer picture of test results and quality on the release branch.

We should continue to run flakyTest in the nightly Jenkins job.

Anthony

[1] https://builds.apache.org/job/Geode-release/


> On Oct 1, 2016, at 12:30 AM, Swapnil Bawaskar <sb...@pivotal.io> wrote:
> 
> Thanks for the offer Anthony,
> I tagged GEODE-17 / GEODE-1570 to be fixed in 1.0 and I removed the 1.0 tag
> from GEODE-1793 so that open JIRA issues for 1.0 [1] should now be accurate.
> 
> I have also cut a branch release/1.0.0-incubating from develop on commit
> abef045179e5d805cb04bc55a77a82798becdaae for the 1.0 release. Please make
> sure that only issues targeted for 1.0 are fixed on that branch. If you are
> using git flow, use git flow release track 1.0.0-incubating for switching
> to the new branch.
> 
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=project%20%
> 3D%20GEODE%20AND%20fixVersion%20%3D%201.0.0-incubating%
> 20AND%20resolution%20%3D%20Unresolved%20ORDER%20BY%
> 20due%20ASC%2C%20priority%20DESC%2C%20created%20ASC
> 
> On Fri, Sep 30, 2016 at 11:30 AM, William Markito <wm...@pivotal.io>
> wrote:
> 
>> +1
>> 
>> On Fri, Sep 30, 2016 at 9:16 AM, Kenneth Howe <kh...@pivotal.io> wrote:
>> 
>>> +1
>>> 
>>>> On Sep 29, 2016, at 2:31 PM, Jacob Barrett <jb...@pivotal.io>
>> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> +1 for creating branch now to prevent feature creep.
>>>> 
>>>> On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 2:10 PM Kirk Lund <kl...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> I think we should propose creating that release branch sooner (now?)
>> so
>>> we
>>>>> can minimize unplanned changes slipping into 1.0 and destabilizing it.
>>>>> 
>>>>> -Kirk
>>>>> 
>>>>> On Thursday, September 29, 2016, Anthony Baker <ab...@pivotal.io>
>>> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> Using the gitflow approach, we cut a release/1.0.0 branch to isolate
>>> the
>>>>>> release branch from ongoing development.  For past releases we have
>>>>> waited
>>>>>> as long as possible to cut the branch to minimize overhead.  Perhaps
>>> this
>>>>>> time we should create the branch earlier.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> JIRA shows the open issues for 1.0.0 [1] but there are some deltas
>>>>>> compared to the last release scope email [2].
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> GEODE-17 / GEODE-1570 was mentioned as a possible candidate for 1.0.0
>>> but
>>>>>> the Fix Version is not set
>>>>>> GEODE-1168 was not included in the 1.0.0 scope discussions but Fix
>>>>> Version
>>>>>> is set to 1.0.0
>>>>>> GEODE-1914 is follow on work from the package namespace changes
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> @Swapnil, does this accurately reflect the scope discussions for
>> 1.0.0?
>>>>>> If so, I can update the bugs.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Anthony
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=project%20%
>>>>>> 3D%20GEODE%20AND%20fixVersion%20%3D%201.0.0-incubating%
>>>>>> 20AND%20resolution%20%3D%20Unresolved%20ORDER%20BY%
>>>>>> 20due%20ASC%2C%20priority%20DESC%2C%20created%20ASC
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> [2] http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-geode-
>>>>>> dev/201609.mbox/%3cCANZq1gBzMTEM_JHzw2YT_
>>> LZeC5g472XkNCfJhma76xah=Yyq6A@
>>>>>> mail.gmail.com%3e
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On Sep 29, 2016, at 1:02 PM, Kirk Lund <klund@apache.org
>>>>> <javascript:;>>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> What changes are we still waiting on to cut the next RC of Geode
>> 1.0?
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Is there a way to create a branch for Geode 1.0 develop that allows
>>>>> folks
>>>>>>> to continue working on post-1.0 features or bug fixes without
>>>>>> destabilizing
>>>>>>> Geode 1.0? This way, only the necessary changes for Geode 1.0 would
>> go
>>>>> to
>>>>>>> the 1.0 branch?
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> -Kirk
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> --
>> 
>> ~/William
>>

Re: Limiting scope for Geode 1.0

Posted by Joey McAllister <jm...@pivotal.io>.
*geode-site, rather

On Wed, Oct 5, 2016 at 2:37 PM Joey McAllister <jm...@pivotal.io>
wrote:

> The docs build process creates HTML output that we can drop into
> geode-website. +William Markito <wm...@pivotal.io> and I were able to
> make this work locally. I'm drafting an updated README that includes how to
> add docs to the existing website infrastructure.
>
> On Wed, Oct 5, 2016 at 2:25 PM Dan Smith <ds...@pivotal.io> wrote:
>
> For the docs, do we plan on delaying the release until the docs are
> part of the source distribution, or until they can actually be hosted
> on geode.apache.org? From what I understand the docs build requires a
> ruby webserver to host the site, so there might some effort to try to
> get the docs actually hosted on the website?
>
> +1 for getting the docs in the source distro at least.
>
> -Dan
>
> On Wed, Oct 5, 2016 at 1:06 PM, Joey McAllister <jm...@pivotal.io>
> wrote:
> > +1 to including docs
> >
> > On Wed, Oct 5, 2016 at 12:48 PM Anthony Baker <ab...@pivotal.io> wrote:
> >
> >> +1 for including docs in the release
> >>
> >> Anthony
> >>
> >> > On Oct 4, 2016, at 11:52 AM, Swapnil Bawaskar <sb...@pivotal.io>
> >> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > This sounds like feature creep, but based on this thread:
> >> > http://markmail.org/message/fwfslt2s7yl7mqm4 do we want to target
> >> GEODE-1952
> >> > <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GEODE-1952> for 1.0?
> >> >
> >> > On Sat, Oct 1, 2016 at 12:30 AM, Swapnil Bawaskar <
> sbawaskar@pivotal.io>
> >> > wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> Thanks for the offer Anthony,
> >> >> I tagged GEODE-17 / GEODE-1570 to be fixed in 1.0 and I removed the
> 1.0
> >> >> tag from GEODE-1793 so that open JIRA issues for 1.0 [1] should now
> be
> >> >> accurate.
> >> >>
> >> >> I have also cut a branch release/1.0.0-incubating from develop on
> commit
> >> >> abef045179e5d805cb04bc55a77a82798becdaae for the 1.0 release. Please
> >> make
> >> >> sure that only issues targeted for 1.0 are fixed on that branch. If
> you
> >> are
> >> >> using git flow, use git flow release track 1.0.0-incubating for
> >> switching
> >> >> to the new branch.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> Thanks!
> >> >>
> >> >> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=project%20%3D
> >> >> %20GEODE%20AND%20fixVersion%20%3D%201.0.0-incubating%20AND%
> >> >> 20resolution%20%3D%20Unresolved%20ORDER%20BY%20due%20ASC%2C%
> >> >> 20priority%20DESC%2C%20created%20ASC
> >> >>
> >> >> On Fri, Sep 30, 2016 at 11:30 AM, William Markito <
> wmarkito@pivotal.io>
> >> >> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >>> +1
> >> >>>
> >> >>> On Fri, Sep 30, 2016 at 9:16 AM, Kenneth Howe <kh...@pivotal.io>
> >> wrote:
> >> >>>
> >> >>>> +1
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>> On Sep 29, 2016, at 2:31 PM, Jacob Barrett <jb...@pivotal.io>
> >> >>> wrote:
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> +1 for creating branch now to prevent feature creep.
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 2:10 PM Kirk Lund <kl...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>>> I think we should propose creating that release branch sooner
> (now?)
> >> >>> so
> >> >>>> we
> >> >>>>>> can minimize unplanned changes slipping into 1.0 and
> destabilizing
> >> >>> it.
> >> >>>>>>
> >> >>>>>> -Kirk
> >> >>>>>>
> >> >>>>>> On Thursday, September 29, 2016, Anthony Baker <
> abaker@pivotal.io>
> >> >>>> wrote:
> >> >>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>> Using the gitflow approach, we cut a release/1.0.0 branch to
> >> isolate
> >> >>>> the
> >> >>>>>>> release branch from ongoing development.  For past releases we
> have
> >> >>>>>> waited
> >> >>>>>>> as long as possible to cut the branch to minimize overhead.
> >> Perhaps
> >> >>>> this
> >> >>>>>>> time we should create the branch earlier.
> >> >>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>> JIRA shows the open issues for 1.0.0 [1] but there are some
> deltas
> >> >>>>>>> compared to the last release scope email [2].
> >> >>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>> GEODE-17 / GEODE-1570 was mentioned as a possible candidate for
> >> >>> 1.0.0
> >> >>>> but
> >> >>>>>>> the Fix Version is not set
> >> >>>>>>> GEODE-1168 was not included in the 1.0.0 scope discussions but
> Fix
> >> >>>>>> Version
> >> >>>>>>> is set to 1.0.0
> >> >>>>>>> GEODE-1914 is follow on work from the package namespace changes
> >> >>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>> @Swapnil, does this accurately reflect the scope discussions for
> >> >>> 1.0.0?
> >> >>>>>>> If so, I can update the bugs.
> >> >>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>> Anthony
> >> >>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=project%20%
> >> >>>>>>> 3D%20GEODE%20AND%20fixVersion%20%3D%201.0.0-incubating%
> >> >>>>>>> 20AND%20resolution%20%3D%20Unresolved%20ORDER%20BY%
> >> >>>>>>> 20due%20ASC%2C%20priority%20DESC%2C%20created%20ASC
> >> >>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>> [2] http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-geode-
> >> >>>>>>> dev/201609.mbox/%3cCANZq1gBzMTEM_JHzw2YT_
> >> >>>> LZeC5g472XkNCfJhma76xah=Yyq6A@
> >> >>>>>>> mail.gmail.com%3e
> >> >>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>> On Sep 29, 2016, at 1:02 PM, Kirk Lund <klund@apache.org
> >> >>>>>> <javascript:;>>
> >> >>>>>>> wrote:
> >> >>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>> What changes are we still waiting on to cut the next RC of
> Geode
> >> >>> 1.0?
> >> >>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>> Is there a way to create a branch for Geode 1.0 develop that
> >> allows
> >> >>>>>> folks
> >> >>>>>>>> to continue working on post-1.0 features or bug fixes without
> >> >>>>>>> destabilizing
> >> >>>>>>>> Geode 1.0? This way, only the necessary changes for Geode 1.0
> >> >>> would go
> >> >>>>>> to
> >> >>>>>>>> the 1.0 branch?
> >> >>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>> -Kirk
> >> >>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>> --
> >> >>>
> >> >>> ~/William
> >> >>>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >>
> >>
>
>

Re: Limiting scope for Geode 1.0

Posted by Joey McAllister <jm...@pivotal.io>.
The docs build process creates HTML output that we can drop into
geode-website. +William Markito <wm...@pivotal.io> and I were able to
make this work locally. I'm drafting an updated README that includes how to
add docs to the existing website infrastructure.

On Wed, Oct 5, 2016 at 2:25 PM Dan Smith <ds...@pivotal.io> wrote:

> For the docs, do we plan on delaying the release until the docs are
> part of the source distribution, or until they can actually be hosted
> on geode.apache.org? From what I understand the docs build requires a
> ruby webserver to host the site, so there might some effort to try to
> get the docs actually hosted on the website?
>
> +1 for getting the docs in the source distro at least.
>
> -Dan
>
> On Wed, Oct 5, 2016 at 1:06 PM, Joey McAllister <jm...@pivotal.io>
> wrote:
> > +1 to including docs
> >
> > On Wed, Oct 5, 2016 at 12:48 PM Anthony Baker <ab...@pivotal.io> wrote:
> >
> >> +1 for including docs in the release
> >>
> >> Anthony
> >>
> >> > On Oct 4, 2016, at 11:52 AM, Swapnil Bawaskar <sb...@pivotal.io>
> >> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > This sounds like feature creep, but based on this thread:
> >> > http://markmail.org/message/fwfslt2s7yl7mqm4 do we want to target
> >> GEODE-1952
> >> > <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GEODE-1952> for 1.0?
> >> >
> >> > On Sat, Oct 1, 2016 at 12:30 AM, Swapnil Bawaskar <
> sbawaskar@pivotal.io>
> >> > wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> Thanks for the offer Anthony,
> >> >> I tagged GEODE-17 / GEODE-1570 to be fixed in 1.0 and I removed the
> 1.0
> >> >> tag from GEODE-1793 so that open JIRA issues for 1.0 [1] should now
> be
> >> >> accurate.
> >> >>
> >> >> I have also cut a branch release/1.0.0-incubating from develop on
> commit
> >> >> abef045179e5d805cb04bc55a77a82798becdaae for the 1.0 release. Please
> >> make
> >> >> sure that only issues targeted for 1.0 are fixed on that branch. If
> you
> >> are
> >> >> using git flow, use git flow release track 1.0.0-incubating for
> >> switching
> >> >> to the new branch.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> Thanks!
> >> >>
> >> >> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=project%20%3D
> >> >> %20GEODE%20AND%20fixVersion%20%3D%201.0.0-incubating%20AND%
> >> >> 20resolution%20%3D%20Unresolved%20ORDER%20BY%20due%20ASC%2C%
> >> >> 20priority%20DESC%2C%20created%20ASC
> >> >>
> >> >> On Fri, Sep 30, 2016 at 11:30 AM, William Markito <
> wmarkito@pivotal.io>
> >> >> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >>> +1
> >> >>>
> >> >>> On Fri, Sep 30, 2016 at 9:16 AM, Kenneth Howe <kh...@pivotal.io>
> >> wrote:
> >> >>>
> >> >>>> +1
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>> On Sep 29, 2016, at 2:31 PM, Jacob Barrett <jb...@pivotal.io>
> >> >>> wrote:
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> +1 for creating branch now to prevent feature creep.
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 2:10 PM Kirk Lund <kl...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>>> I think we should propose creating that release branch sooner
> (now?)
> >> >>> so
> >> >>>> we
> >> >>>>>> can minimize unplanned changes slipping into 1.0 and
> destabilizing
> >> >>> it.
> >> >>>>>>
> >> >>>>>> -Kirk
> >> >>>>>>
> >> >>>>>> On Thursday, September 29, 2016, Anthony Baker <
> abaker@pivotal.io>
> >> >>>> wrote:
> >> >>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>> Using the gitflow approach, we cut a release/1.0.0 branch to
> >> isolate
> >> >>>> the
> >> >>>>>>> release branch from ongoing development.  For past releases we
> have
> >> >>>>>> waited
> >> >>>>>>> as long as possible to cut the branch to minimize overhead.
> >> Perhaps
> >> >>>> this
> >> >>>>>>> time we should create the branch earlier.
> >> >>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>> JIRA shows the open issues for 1.0.0 [1] but there are some
> deltas
> >> >>>>>>> compared to the last release scope email [2].
> >> >>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>> GEODE-17 / GEODE-1570 was mentioned as a possible candidate for
> >> >>> 1.0.0
> >> >>>> but
> >> >>>>>>> the Fix Version is not set
> >> >>>>>>> GEODE-1168 was not included in the 1.0.0 scope discussions but
> Fix
> >> >>>>>> Version
> >> >>>>>>> is set to 1.0.0
> >> >>>>>>> GEODE-1914 is follow on work from the package namespace changes
> >> >>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>> @Swapnil, does this accurately reflect the scope discussions for
> >> >>> 1.0.0?
> >> >>>>>>> If so, I can update the bugs.
> >> >>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>> Anthony
> >> >>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=project%20%
> >> >>>>>>> 3D%20GEODE%20AND%20fixVersion%20%3D%201.0.0-incubating%
> >> >>>>>>> 20AND%20resolution%20%3D%20Unresolved%20ORDER%20BY%
> >> >>>>>>> 20due%20ASC%2C%20priority%20DESC%2C%20created%20ASC
> >> >>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>> [2] http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-geode-
> >> >>>>>>> dev/201609.mbox/%3cCANZq1gBzMTEM_JHzw2YT_
> >> >>>> LZeC5g472XkNCfJhma76xah=Yyq6A@
> >> >>>>>>> mail.gmail.com%3e
> >> >>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>> On Sep 29, 2016, at 1:02 PM, Kirk Lund <klund@apache.org
> >> >>>>>> <javascript:;>>
> >> >>>>>>> wrote:
> >> >>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>> What changes are we still waiting on to cut the next RC of
> Geode
> >> >>> 1.0?
> >> >>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>> Is there a way to create a branch for Geode 1.0 develop that
> >> allows
> >> >>>>>> folks
> >> >>>>>>>> to continue working on post-1.0 features or bug fixes without
> >> >>>>>>> destabilizing
> >> >>>>>>>> Geode 1.0? This way, only the necessary changes for Geode 1.0
> >> >>> would go
> >> >>>>>> to
> >> >>>>>>>> the 1.0 branch?
> >> >>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>> -Kirk
> >> >>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>> --
> >> >>>
> >> >>> ~/William
> >> >>>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >>
> >>
>

Re: Limiting scope for Geode 1.0

Posted by Dan Smith <ds...@pivotal.io>.
For the docs, do we plan on delaying the release until the docs are
part of the source distribution, or until they can actually be hosted
on geode.apache.org? From what I understand the docs build requires a
ruby webserver to host the site, so there might some effort to try to
get the docs actually hosted on the website?

+1 for getting the docs in the source distro at least.

-Dan

On Wed, Oct 5, 2016 at 1:06 PM, Joey McAllister <jm...@pivotal.io> wrote:
> +1 to including docs
>
> On Wed, Oct 5, 2016 at 12:48 PM Anthony Baker <ab...@pivotal.io> wrote:
>
>> +1 for including docs in the release
>>
>> Anthony
>>
>> > On Oct 4, 2016, at 11:52 AM, Swapnil Bawaskar <sb...@pivotal.io>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > This sounds like feature creep, but based on this thread:
>> > http://markmail.org/message/fwfslt2s7yl7mqm4 do we want to target
>> GEODE-1952
>> > <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GEODE-1952> for 1.0?
>> >
>> > On Sat, Oct 1, 2016 at 12:30 AM, Swapnil Bawaskar <sb...@pivotal.io>
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> >> Thanks for the offer Anthony,
>> >> I tagged GEODE-17 / GEODE-1570 to be fixed in 1.0 and I removed the 1.0
>> >> tag from GEODE-1793 so that open JIRA issues for 1.0 [1] should now be
>> >> accurate.
>> >>
>> >> I have also cut a branch release/1.0.0-incubating from develop on commit
>> >> abef045179e5d805cb04bc55a77a82798becdaae for the 1.0 release. Please
>> make
>> >> sure that only issues targeted for 1.0 are fixed on that branch. If you
>> are
>> >> using git flow, use git flow release track 1.0.0-incubating for
>> switching
>> >> to the new branch.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Thanks!
>> >>
>> >> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=project%20%3D
>> >> %20GEODE%20AND%20fixVersion%20%3D%201.0.0-incubating%20AND%
>> >> 20resolution%20%3D%20Unresolved%20ORDER%20BY%20due%20ASC%2C%
>> >> 20priority%20DESC%2C%20created%20ASC
>> >>
>> >> On Fri, Sep 30, 2016 at 11:30 AM, William Markito <wm...@pivotal.io>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> +1
>> >>>
>> >>> On Fri, Sep 30, 2016 at 9:16 AM, Kenneth Howe <kh...@pivotal.io>
>> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>> +1
>> >>>>
>> >>>>> On Sep 29, 2016, at 2:31 PM, Jacob Barrett <jb...@pivotal.io>
>> >>> wrote:
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> +1 for creating branch now to prevent feature creep.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 2:10 PM Kirk Lund <kl...@apache.org> wrote:
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>> I think we should propose creating that release branch sooner (now?)
>> >>> so
>> >>>> we
>> >>>>>> can minimize unplanned changes slipping into 1.0 and destabilizing
>> >>> it.
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> -Kirk
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> On Thursday, September 29, 2016, Anthony Baker <ab...@pivotal.io>
>> >>>> wrote:
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> Using the gitflow approach, we cut a release/1.0.0 branch to
>> isolate
>> >>>> the
>> >>>>>>> release branch from ongoing development.  For past releases we have
>> >>>>>> waited
>> >>>>>>> as long as possible to cut the branch to minimize overhead.
>> Perhaps
>> >>>> this
>> >>>>>>> time we should create the branch earlier.
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> JIRA shows the open issues for 1.0.0 [1] but there are some deltas
>> >>>>>>> compared to the last release scope email [2].
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> GEODE-17 / GEODE-1570 was mentioned as a possible candidate for
>> >>> 1.0.0
>> >>>> but
>> >>>>>>> the Fix Version is not set
>> >>>>>>> GEODE-1168 was not included in the 1.0.0 scope discussions but Fix
>> >>>>>> Version
>> >>>>>>> is set to 1.0.0
>> >>>>>>> GEODE-1914 is follow on work from the package namespace changes
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> @Swapnil, does this accurately reflect the scope discussions for
>> >>> 1.0.0?
>> >>>>>>> If so, I can update the bugs.
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> Anthony
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=project%20%
>> >>>>>>> 3D%20GEODE%20AND%20fixVersion%20%3D%201.0.0-incubating%
>> >>>>>>> 20AND%20resolution%20%3D%20Unresolved%20ORDER%20BY%
>> >>>>>>> 20due%20ASC%2C%20priority%20DESC%2C%20created%20ASC
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> [2] http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-geode-
>> >>>>>>> dev/201609.mbox/%3cCANZq1gBzMTEM_JHzw2YT_
>> >>>> LZeC5g472XkNCfJhma76xah=Yyq6A@
>> >>>>>>> mail.gmail.com%3e
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> On Sep 29, 2016, at 1:02 PM, Kirk Lund <klund@apache.org
>> >>>>>> <javascript:;>>
>> >>>>>>> wrote:
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> What changes are we still waiting on to cut the next RC of Geode
>> >>> 1.0?
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> Is there a way to create a branch for Geode 1.0 develop that
>> allows
>> >>>>>> folks
>> >>>>>>>> to continue working on post-1.0 features or bug fixes without
>> >>>>>>> destabilizing
>> >>>>>>>> Geode 1.0? This way, only the necessary changes for Geode 1.0
>> >>> would go
>> >>>>>> to
>> >>>>>>>> the 1.0 branch?
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> -Kirk
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> --
>> >>>
>> >>> ~/William
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >>
>>
>>

Re: Limiting scope for Geode 1.0

Posted by Joey McAllister <jm...@pivotal.io>.
+1 to including docs

On Wed, Oct 5, 2016 at 12:48 PM Anthony Baker <ab...@pivotal.io> wrote:

> +1 for including docs in the release
>
> Anthony
>
> > On Oct 4, 2016, at 11:52 AM, Swapnil Bawaskar <sb...@pivotal.io>
> wrote:
> >
> > This sounds like feature creep, but based on this thread:
> > http://markmail.org/message/fwfslt2s7yl7mqm4 do we want to target
> GEODE-1952
> > <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GEODE-1952> for 1.0?
> >
> > On Sat, Oct 1, 2016 at 12:30 AM, Swapnil Bawaskar <sb...@pivotal.io>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Thanks for the offer Anthony,
> >> I tagged GEODE-17 / GEODE-1570 to be fixed in 1.0 and I removed the 1.0
> >> tag from GEODE-1793 so that open JIRA issues for 1.0 [1] should now be
> >> accurate.
> >>
> >> I have also cut a branch release/1.0.0-incubating from develop on commit
> >> abef045179e5d805cb04bc55a77a82798becdaae for the 1.0 release. Please
> make
> >> sure that only issues targeted for 1.0 are fixed on that branch. If you
> are
> >> using git flow, use git flow release track 1.0.0-incubating for
> switching
> >> to the new branch.
> >>
> >>
> >> Thanks!
> >>
> >> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=project%20%3D
> >> %20GEODE%20AND%20fixVersion%20%3D%201.0.0-incubating%20AND%
> >> 20resolution%20%3D%20Unresolved%20ORDER%20BY%20due%20ASC%2C%
> >> 20priority%20DESC%2C%20created%20ASC
> >>
> >> On Fri, Sep 30, 2016 at 11:30 AM, William Markito <wm...@pivotal.io>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> +1
> >>>
> >>> On Fri, Sep 30, 2016 at 9:16 AM, Kenneth Howe <kh...@pivotal.io>
> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> +1
> >>>>
> >>>>> On Sep 29, 2016, at 2:31 PM, Jacob Barrett <jb...@pivotal.io>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> +1 for creating branch now to prevent feature creep.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 2:10 PM Kirk Lund <kl...@apache.org> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> I think we should propose creating that release branch sooner (now?)
> >>> so
> >>>> we
> >>>>>> can minimize unplanned changes slipping into 1.0 and destabilizing
> >>> it.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> -Kirk
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> On Thursday, September 29, 2016, Anthony Baker <ab...@pivotal.io>
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Using the gitflow approach, we cut a release/1.0.0 branch to
> isolate
> >>>> the
> >>>>>>> release branch from ongoing development.  For past releases we have
> >>>>>> waited
> >>>>>>> as long as possible to cut the branch to minimize overhead.
> Perhaps
> >>>> this
> >>>>>>> time we should create the branch earlier.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> JIRA shows the open issues for 1.0.0 [1] but there are some deltas
> >>>>>>> compared to the last release scope email [2].
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> GEODE-17 / GEODE-1570 was mentioned as a possible candidate for
> >>> 1.0.0
> >>>> but
> >>>>>>> the Fix Version is not set
> >>>>>>> GEODE-1168 was not included in the 1.0.0 scope discussions but Fix
> >>>>>> Version
> >>>>>>> is set to 1.0.0
> >>>>>>> GEODE-1914 is follow on work from the package namespace changes
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> @Swapnil, does this accurately reflect the scope discussions for
> >>> 1.0.0?
> >>>>>>> If so, I can update the bugs.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Anthony
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=project%20%
> >>>>>>> 3D%20GEODE%20AND%20fixVersion%20%3D%201.0.0-incubating%
> >>>>>>> 20AND%20resolution%20%3D%20Unresolved%20ORDER%20BY%
> >>>>>>> 20due%20ASC%2C%20priority%20DESC%2C%20created%20ASC
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> [2] http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-geode-
> >>>>>>> dev/201609.mbox/%3cCANZq1gBzMTEM_JHzw2YT_
> >>>> LZeC5g472XkNCfJhma76xah=Yyq6A@
> >>>>>>> mail.gmail.com%3e
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> On Sep 29, 2016, at 1:02 PM, Kirk Lund <klund@apache.org
> >>>>>> <javascript:;>>
> >>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> What changes are we still waiting on to cut the next RC of Geode
> >>> 1.0?
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Is there a way to create a branch for Geode 1.0 develop that
> allows
> >>>>>> folks
> >>>>>>>> to continue working on post-1.0 features or bug fixes without
> >>>>>>> destabilizing
> >>>>>>>> Geode 1.0? This way, only the necessary changes for Geode 1.0
> >>> would go
> >>>>>> to
> >>>>>>>> the 1.0 branch?
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> -Kirk
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>>
> >>> ~/William
> >>>
> >>
> >>
>
>

Re: Limiting scope for Geode 1.0

Posted by Anthony Baker <ab...@pivotal.io>.
+1 for including docs in the release

Anthony

> On Oct 4, 2016, at 11:52 AM, Swapnil Bawaskar <sb...@pivotal.io> wrote:
> 
> This sounds like feature creep, but based on this thread:
> http://markmail.org/message/fwfslt2s7yl7mqm4 do we want to target GEODE-1952
> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GEODE-1952> for 1.0?
> 
> On Sat, Oct 1, 2016 at 12:30 AM, Swapnil Bawaskar <sb...@pivotal.io>
> wrote:
> 
>> Thanks for the offer Anthony,
>> I tagged GEODE-17 / GEODE-1570 to be fixed in 1.0 and I removed the 1.0
>> tag from GEODE-1793 so that open JIRA issues for 1.0 [1] should now be
>> accurate.
>> 
>> I have also cut a branch release/1.0.0-incubating from develop on commit
>> abef045179e5d805cb04bc55a77a82798becdaae for the 1.0 release. Please make
>> sure that only issues targeted for 1.0 are fixed on that branch. If you are
>> using git flow, use git flow release track 1.0.0-incubating for switching
>> to the new branch.
>> 
>> 
>> Thanks!
>> 
>> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=project%20%3D
>> %20GEODE%20AND%20fixVersion%20%3D%201.0.0-incubating%20AND%
>> 20resolution%20%3D%20Unresolved%20ORDER%20BY%20due%20ASC%2C%
>> 20priority%20DESC%2C%20created%20ASC
>> 
>> On Fri, Sep 30, 2016 at 11:30 AM, William Markito <wm...@pivotal.io>
>> wrote:
>> 
>>> +1
>>> 
>>> On Fri, Sep 30, 2016 at 9:16 AM, Kenneth Howe <kh...@pivotal.io> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> +1
>>>> 
>>>>> On Sep 29, 2016, at 2:31 PM, Jacob Barrett <jb...@pivotal.io>
>>> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> +1 for creating branch now to prevent feature creep.
>>>>> 
>>>>> On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 2:10 PM Kirk Lund <kl...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> I think we should propose creating that release branch sooner (now?)
>>> so
>>>> we
>>>>>> can minimize unplanned changes slipping into 1.0 and destabilizing
>>> it.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> -Kirk
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> On Thursday, September 29, 2016, Anthony Baker <ab...@pivotal.io>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Using the gitflow approach, we cut a release/1.0.0 branch to isolate
>>>> the
>>>>>>> release branch from ongoing development.  For past releases we have
>>>>>> waited
>>>>>>> as long as possible to cut the branch to minimize overhead.  Perhaps
>>>> this
>>>>>>> time we should create the branch earlier.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> JIRA shows the open issues for 1.0.0 [1] but there are some deltas
>>>>>>> compared to the last release scope email [2].
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> GEODE-17 / GEODE-1570 was mentioned as a possible candidate for
>>> 1.0.0
>>>> but
>>>>>>> the Fix Version is not set
>>>>>>> GEODE-1168 was not included in the 1.0.0 scope discussions but Fix
>>>>>> Version
>>>>>>> is set to 1.0.0
>>>>>>> GEODE-1914 is follow on work from the package namespace changes
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> @Swapnil, does this accurately reflect the scope discussions for
>>> 1.0.0?
>>>>>>> If so, I can update the bugs.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Anthony
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=project%20%
>>>>>>> 3D%20GEODE%20AND%20fixVersion%20%3D%201.0.0-incubating%
>>>>>>> 20AND%20resolution%20%3D%20Unresolved%20ORDER%20BY%
>>>>>>> 20due%20ASC%2C%20priority%20DESC%2C%20created%20ASC
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> [2] http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-geode-
>>>>>>> dev/201609.mbox/%3cCANZq1gBzMTEM_JHzw2YT_
>>>> LZeC5g472XkNCfJhma76xah=Yyq6A@
>>>>>>> mail.gmail.com%3e
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> On Sep 29, 2016, at 1:02 PM, Kirk Lund <klund@apache.org
>>>>>> <javascript:;>>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> What changes are we still waiting on to cut the next RC of Geode
>>> 1.0?
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Is there a way to create a branch for Geode 1.0 develop that allows
>>>>>> folks
>>>>>>>> to continue working on post-1.0 features or bug fixes without
>>>>>>> destabilizing
>>>>>>>> Geode 1.0? This way, only the necessary changes for Geode 1.0
>>> would go
>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>> the 1.0 branch?
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> -Kirk
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> --
>>> 
>>> ~/William
>>> 
>> 
>>

Re: Limiting scope for Geode 1.0

Posted by Swapnil Bawaskar <sb...@pivotal.io>.
This sounds like feature creep, but based on this thread:
http://markmail.org/message/fwfslt2s7yl7mqm4 do we want to target GEODE-1952
<https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GEODE-1952> for 1.0?

On Sat, Oct 1, 2016 at 12:30 AM, Swapnil Bawaskar <sb...@pivotal.io>
wrote:

> Thanks for the offer Anthony,
> I tagged GEODE-17 / GEODE-1570 to be fixed in 1.0 and I removed the 1.0
> tag from GEODE-1793 so that open JIRA issues for 1.0 [1] should now be
> accurate.
>
> I have also cut a branch release/1.0.0-incubating from develop on commit
> abef045179e5d805cb04bc55a77a82798becdaae for the 1.0 release. Please make
> sure that only issues targeted for 1.0 are fixed on that branch. If you are
> using git flow, use git flow release track 1.0.0-incubating for switching
> to the new branch.
>
>
> Thanks!
>
> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=project%20%3D
> %20GEODE%20AND%20fixVersion%20%3D%201.0.0-incubating%20AND%
> 20resolution%20%3D%20Unresolved%20ORDER%20BY%20due%20ASC%2C%
> 20priority%20DESC%2C%20created%20ASC
>
> On Fri, Sep 30, 2016 at 11:30 AM, William Markito <wm...@pivotal.io>
> wrote:
>
>> +1
>>
>> On Fri, Sep 30, 2016 at 9:16 AM, Kenneth Howe <kh...@pivotal.io> wrote:
>>
>> > +1
>> >
>> > > On Sep 29, 2016, at 2:31 PM, Jacob Barrett <jb...@pivotal.io>
>> wrote:
>> > >
>> > > +1 for creating branch now to prevent feature creep.
>> > >
>> > > On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 2:10 PM Kirk Lund <kl...@apache.org> wrote:
>> > >
>> > >> I think we should propose creating that release branch sooner (now?)
>> so
>> > we
>> > >> can minimize unplanned changes slipping into 1.0 and destabilizing
>> it.
>> > >>
>> > >> -Kirk
>> > >>
>> > >> On Thursday, September 29, 2016, Anthony Baker <ab...@pivotal.io>
>> > wrote:
>> > >>
>> > >>> Using the gitflow approach, we cut a release/1.0.0 branch to isolate
>> > the
>> > >>> release branch from ongoing development.  For past releases we have
>> > >> waited
>> > >>> as long as possible to cut the branch to minimize overhead.  Perhaps
>> > this
>> > >>> time we should create the branch earlier.
>> > >>>
>> > >>> JIRA shows the open issues for 1.0.0 [1] but there are some deltas
>> > >>> compared to the last release scope email [2].
>> > >>>
>> > >>> GEODE-17 / GEODE-1570 was mentioned as a possible candidate for
>> 1.0.0
>> > but
>> > >>> the Fix Version is not set
>> > >>> GEODE-1168 was not included in the 1.0.0 scope discussions but Fix
>> > >> Version
>> > >>> is set to 1.0.0
>> > >>> GEODE-1914 is follow on work from the package namespace changes
>> > >>>
>> > >>> @Swapnil, does this accurately reflect the scope discussions for
>> 1.0.0?
>> > >>> If so, I can update the bugs.
>> > >>>
>> > >>> Anthony
>> > >>>
>> > >>> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=project%20%
>> > >>> 3D%20GEODE%20AND%20fixVersion%20%3D%201.0.0-incubating%
>> > >>> 20AND%20resolution%20%3D%20Unresolved%20ORDER%20BY%
>> > >>> 20due%20ASC%2C%20priority%20DESC%2C%20created%20ASC
>> > >>>
>> > >>> [2] http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-geode-
>> > >>> dev/201609.mbox/%3cCANZq1gBzMTEM_JHzw2YT_
>> > LZeC5g472XkNCfJhma76xah=Yyq6A@
>> > >>> mail.gmail.com%3e
>> > >>>
>> > >>>
>> > >>>> On Sep 29, 2016, at 1:02 PM, Kirk Lund <klund@apache.org
>> > >> <javascript:;>>
>> > >>> wrote:
>> > >>>>
>> > >>>> What changes are we still waiting on to cut the next RC of Geode
>> 1.0?
>> > >>>>
>> > >>>> Is there a way to create a branch for Geode 1.0 develop that allows
>> > >> folks
>> > >>>> to continue working on post-1.0 features or bug fixes without
>> > >>> destabilizing
>> > >>>> Geode 1.0? This way, only the necessary changes for Geode 1.0
>> would go
>> > >> to
>> > >>>> the 1.0 branch?
>> > >>>>
>> > >>>> -Kirk
>> > >>>
>> > >>>
>> > >>
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> ~/William
>>
>
>

Re: Limiting scope for Geode 1.0

Posted by Swapnil Bawaskar <sb...@pivotal.io>.
Thanks for the offer Anthony,
I tagged GEODE-17 / GEODE-1570 to be fixed in 1.0 and I removed the 1.0 tag
from GEODE-1793 so that open JIRA issues for 1.0 [1] should now be accurate.

I have also cut a branch release/1.0.0-incubating from develop on commit
abef045179e5d805cb04bc55a77a82798becdaae for the 1.0 release. Please make
sure that only issues targeted for 1.0 are fixed on that branch. If you are
using git flow, use git flow release track 1.0.0-incubating for switching
to the new branch.


Thanks!

[1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=project%20%
3D%20GEODE%20AND%20fixVersion%20%3D%201.0.0-incubating%
20AND%20resolution%20%3D%20Unresolved%20ORDER%20BY%
20due%20ASC%2C%20priority%20DESC%2C%20created%20ASC

On Fri, Sep 30, 2016 at 11:30 AM, William Markito <wm...@pivotal.io>
wrote:

> +1
>
> On Fri, Sep 30, 2016 at 9:16 AM, Kenneth Howe <kh...@pivotal.io> wrote:
>
> > +1
> >
> > > On Sep 29, 2016, at 2:31 PM, Jacob Barrett <jb...@pivotal.io>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > +1 for creating branch now to prevent feature creep.
> > >
> > > On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 2:10 PM Kirk Lund <kl...@apache.org> wrote:
> > >
> > >> I think we should propose creating that release branch sooner (now?)
> so
> > we
> > >> can minimize unplanned changes slipping into 1.0 and destabilizing it.
> > >>
> > >> -Kirk
> > >>
> > >> On Thursday, September 29, 2016, Anthony Baker <ab...@pivotal.io>
> > wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> Using the gitflow approach, we cut a release/1.0.0 branch to isolate
> > the
> > >>> release branch from ongoing development.  For past releases we have
> > >> waited
> > >>> as long as possible to cut the branch to minimize overhead.  Perhaps
> > this
> > >>> time we should create the branch earlier.
> > >>>
> > >>> JIRA shows the open issues for 1.0.0 [1] but there are some deltas
> > >>> compared to the last release scope email [2].
> > >>>
> > >>> GEODE-17 / GEODE-1570 was mentioned as a possible candidate for 1.0.0
> > but
> > >>> the Fix Version is not set
> > >>> GEODE-1168 was not included in the 1.0.0 scope discussions but Fix
> > >> Version
> > >>> is set to 1.0.0
> > >>> GEODE-1914 is follow on work from the package namespace changes
> > >>>
> > >>> @Swapnil, does this accurately reflect the scope discussions for
> 1.0.0?
> > >>> If so, I can update the bugs.
> > >>>
> > >>> Anthony
> > >>>
> > >>> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=project%20%
> > >>> 3D%20GEODE%20AND%20fixVersion%20%3D%201.0.0-incubating%
> > >>> 20AND%20resolution%20%3D%20Unresolved%20ORDER%20BY%
> > >>> 20due%20ASC%2C%20priority%20DESC%2C%20created%20ASC
> > >>>
> > >>> [2] http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-geode-
> > >>> dev/201609.mbox/%3cCANZq1gBzMTEM_JHzw2YT_
> > LZeC5g472XkNCfJhma76xah=Yyq6A@
> > >>> mail.gmail.com%3e
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>> On Sep 29, 2016, at 1:02 PM, Kirk Lund <klund@apache.org
> > >> <javascript:;>>
> > >>> wrote:
> > >>>>
> > >>>> What changes are we still waiting on to cut the next RC of Geode
> 1.0?
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Is there a way to create a branch for Geode 1.0 develop that allows
> > >> folks
> > >>>> to continue working on post-1.0 features or bug fixes without
> > >>> destabilizing
> > >>>> Geode 1.0? This way, only the necessary changes for Geode 1.0 would
> go
> > >> to
> > >>>> the 1.0 branch?
> > >>>>
> > >>>> -Kirk
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>
> >
> >
>
>
> --
>
> ~/William
>

Re: Limiting scope for Geode 1.0

Posted by William Markito <wm...@pivotal.io>.
+1

On Fri, Sep 30, 2016 at 9:16 AM, Kenneth Howe <kh...@pivotal.io> wrote:

> +1
>
> > On Sep 29, 2016, at 2:31 PM, Jacob Barrett <jb...@pivotal.io> wrote:
> >
> > +1 for creating branch now to prevent feature creep.
> >
> > On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 2:10 PM Kirk Lund <kl...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> >> I think we should propose creating that release branch sooner (now?) so
> we
> >> can minimize unplanned changes slipping into 1.0 and destabilizing it.
> >>
> >> -Kirk
> >>
> >> On Thursday, September 29, 2016, Anthony Baker <ab...@pivotal.io>
> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Using the gitflow approach, we cut a release/1.0.0 branch to isolate
> the
> >>> release branch from ongoing development.  For past releases we have
> >> waited
> >>> as long as possible to cut the branch to minimize overhead.  Perhaps
> this
> >>> time we should create the branch earlier.
> >>>
> >>> JIRA shows the open issues for 1.0.0 [1] but there are some deltas
> >>> compared to the last release scope email [2].
> >>>
> >>> GEODE-17 / GEODE-1570 was mentioned as a possible candidate for 1.0.0
> but
> >>> the Fix Version is not set
> >>> GEODE-1168 was not included in the 1.0.0 scope discussions but Fix
> >> Version
> >>> is set to 1.0.0
> >>> GEODE-1914 is follow on work from the package namespace changes
> >>>
> >>> @Swapnil, does this accurately reflect the scope discussions for 1.0.0?
> >>> If so, I can update the bugs.
> >>>
> >>> Anthony
> >>>
> >>> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=project%20%
> >>> 3D%20GEODE%20AND%20fixVersion%20%3D%201.0.0-incubating%
> >>> 20AND%20resolution%20%3D%20Unresolved%20ORDER%20BY%
> >>> 20due%20ASC%2C%20priority%20DESC%2C%20created%20ASC
> >>>
> >>> [2] http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-geode-
> >>> dev/201609.mbox/%3cCANZq1gBzMTEM_JHzw2YT_
> LZeC5g472XkNCfJhma76xah=Yyq6A@
> >>> mail.gmail.com%3e
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> On Sep 29, 2016, at 1:02 PM, Kirk Lund <klund@apache.org
> >> <javascript:;>>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> What changes are we still waiting on to cut the next RC of Geode 1.0?
> >>>>
> >>>> Is there a way to create a branch for Geode 1.0 develop that allows
> >> folks
> >>>> to continue working on post-1.0 features or bug fixes without
> >>> destabilizing
> >>>> Geode 1.0? This way, only the necessary changes for Geode 1.0 would go
> >> to
> >>>> the 1.0 branch?
> >>>>
> >>>> -Kirk
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
>
>


-- 

~/William

Re: Limiting scope for Geode 1.0

Posted by Kenneth Howe <kh...@pivotal.io>.
+1

> On Sep 29, 2016, at 2:31 PM, Jacob Barrett <jb...@pivotal.io> wrote:
> 
> +1 for creating branch now to prevent feature creep.
> 
> On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 2:10 PM Kirk Lund <kl...@apache.org> wrote:
> 
>> I think we should propose creating that release branch sooner (now?) so we
>> can minimize unplanned changes slipping into 1.0 and destabilizing it.
>> 
>> -Kirk
>> 
>> On Thursday, September 29, 2016, Anthony Baker <ab...@pivotal.io> wrote:
>> 
>>> Using the gitflow approach, we cut a release/1.0.0 branch to isolate the
>>> release branch from ongoing development.  For past releases we have
>> waited
>>> as long as possible to cut the branch to minimize overhead.  Perhaps this
>>> time we should create the branch earlier.
>>> 
>>> JIRA shows the open issues for 1.0.0 [1] but there are some deltas
>>> compared to the last release scope email [2].
>>> 
>>> GEODE-17 / GEODE-1570 was mentioned as a possible candidate for 1.0.0 but
>>> the Fix Version is not set
>>> GEODE-1168 was not included in the 1.0.0 scope discussions but Fix
>> Version
>>> is set to 1.0.0
>>> GEODE-1914 is follow on work from the package namespace changes
>>> 
>>> @Swapnil, does this accurately reflect the scope discussions for 1.0.0?
>>> If so, I can update the bugs.
>>> 
>>> Anthony
>>> 
>>> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=project%20%
>>> 3D%20GEODE%20AND%20fixVersion%20%3D%201.0.0-incubating%
>>> 20AND%20resolution%20%3D%20Unresolved%20ORDER%20BY%
>>> 20due%20ASC%2C%20priority%20DESC%2C%20created%20ASC
>>> 
>>> [2] http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-geode-
>>> dev/201609.mbox/%3cCANZq1gBzMTEM_JHzw2YT_LZeC5g472XkNCfJhma76xah=Yyq6A@
>>> mail.gmail.com%3e
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> On Sep 29, 2016, at 1:02 PM, Kirk Lund <klund@apache.org
>> <javascript:;>>
>>> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> What changes are we still waiting on to cut the next RC of Geode 1.0?
>>>> 
>>>> Is there a way to create a branch for Geode 1.0 develop that allows
>> folks
>>>> to continue working on post-1.0 features or bug fixes without
>>> destabilizing
>>>> Geode 1.0? This way, only the necessary changes for Geode 1.0 would go
>> to
>>>> the 1.0 branch?
>>>> 
>>>> -Kirk
>>> 
>>> 
>>

Re: Limiting scope for Geode 1.0

Posted by Jacob Barrett <jb...@pivotal.io>.
+1 for creating branch now to prevent feature creep.

On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 2:10 PM Kirk Lund <kl...@apache.org> wrote:

> I think we should propose creating that release branch sooner (now?) so we
> can minimize unplanned changes slipping into 1.0 and destabilizing it.
>
> -Kirk
>
> On Thursday, September 29, 2016, Anthony Baker <ab...@pivotal.io> wrote:
>
> > Using the gitflow approach, we cut a release/1.0.0 branch to isolate the
> > release branch from ongoing development.  For past releases we have
> waited
> > as long as possible to cut the branch to minimize overhead.  Perhaps this
> > time we should create the branch earlier.
> >
> > JIRA shows the open issues for 1.0.0 [1] but there are some deltas
> > compared to the last release scope email [2].
> >
> > GEODE-17 / GEODE-1570 was mentioned as a possible candidate for 1.0.0 but
> > the Fix Version is not set
> > GEODE-1168 was not included in the 1.0.0 scope discussions but Fix
> Version
> > is set to 1.0.0
> > GEODE-1914 is follow on work from the package namespace changes
> >
> > @Swapnil, does this accurately reflect the scope discussions for 1.0.0?
> > If so, I can update the bugs.
> >
> > Anthony
> >
> > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=project%20%
> > 3D%20GEODE%20AND%20fixVersion%20%3D%201.0.0-incubating%
> > 20AND%20resolution%20%3D%20Unresolved%20ORDER%20BY%
> > 20due%20ASC%2C%20priority%20DESC%2C%20created%20ASC
> >
> > [2] http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-geode-
> > dev/201609.mbox/%3cCANZq1gBzMTEM_JHzw2YT_LZeC5g472XkNCfJhma76xah=Yyq6A@
> > mail.gmail.com%3e
> >
> >
> > > On Sep 29, 2016, at 1:02 PM, Kirk Lund <klund@apache.org
> <javascript:;>>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > What changes are we still waiting on to cut the next RC of Geode 1.0?
> > >
> > > Is there a way to create a branch for Geode 1.0 develop that allows
> folks
> > > to continue working on post-1.0 features or bug fixes without
> > destabilizing
> > > Geode 1.0? This way, only the necessary changes for Geode 1.0 would go
> to
> > > the 1.0 branch?
> > >
> > > -Kirk
> >
> >
>

Re: Limiting scope for Geode 1.0

Posted by Kirk Lund <kl...@apache.org>.
I think we should propose creating that release branch sooner (now?) so we
can minimize unplanned changes slipping into 1.0 and destabilizing it.

-Kirk

On Thursday, September 29, 2016, Anthony Baker <ab...@pivotal.io> wrote:

> Using the gitflow approach, we cut a release/1.0.0 branch to isolate the
> release branch from ongoing development.  For past releases we have waited
> as long as possible to cut the branch to minimize overhead.  Perhaps this
> time we should create the branch earlier.
>
> JIRA shows the open issues for 1.0.0 [1] but there are some deltas
> compared to the last release scope email [2].
>
> GEODE-17 / GEODE-1570 was mentioned as a possible candidate for 1.0.0 but
> the Fix Version is not set
> GEODE-1168 was not included in the 1.0.0 scope discussions but Fix Version
> is set to 1.0.0
> GEODE-1914 is follow on work from the package namespace changes
>
> @Swapnil, does this accurately reflect the scope discussions for 1.0.0?
> If so, I can update the bugs.
>
> Anthony
>
> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=project%20%
> 3D%20GEODE%20AND%20fixVersion%20%3D%201.0.0-incubating%
> 20AND%20resolution%20%3D%20Unresolved%20ORDER%20BY%
> 20due%20ASC%2C%20priority%20DESC%2C%20created%20ASC
>
> [2] http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-geode-
> dev/201609.mbox/%3cCANZq1gBzMTEM_JHzw2YT_LZeC5g472XkNCfJhma76xah=Yyq6A@
> mail.gmail.com%3e
>
>
> > On Sep 29, 2016, at 1:02 PM, Kirk Lund <klund@apache.org <javascript:;>>
> wrote:
> >
> > What changes are we still waiting on to cut the next RC of Geode 1.0?
> >
> > Is there a way to create a branch for Geode 1.0 develop that allows folks
> > to continue working on post-1.0 features or bug fixes without
> destabilizing
> > Geode 1.0? This way, only the necessary changes for Geode 1.0 would go to
> > the 1.0 branch?
> >
> > -Kirk
>
>

Re: Limiting scope for Geode 1.0

Posted by Anthony Baker <ab...@pivotal.io>.
Using the gitflow approach, we cut a release/1.0.0 branch to isolate the release branch from ongoing development.  For past releases we have waited as long as possible to cut the branch to minimize overhead.  Perhaps this time we should create the branch earlier.

JIRA shows the open issues for 1.0.0 [1] but there are some deltas compared to the last release scope email [2].

GEODE-17 / GEODE-1570 was mentioned as a possible candidate for 1.0.0 but the Fix Version is not set
GEODE-1168 was not included in the 1.0.0 scope discussions but Fix Version is set to 1.0.0
GEODE-1914 is follow on work from the package namespace changes

@Swapnil, does this accurately reflect the scope discussions for 1.0.0?  If so, I can update the bugs.

Anthony

[1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=project%20%3D%20GEODE%20AND%20fixVersion%20%3D%201.0.0-incubating%20AND%20resolution%20%3D%20Unresolved%20ORDER%20BY%20due%20ASC%2C%20priority%20DESC%2C%20created%20ASC

[2] http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-geode-dev/201609.mbox/%3cCANZq1gBzMTEM_JHzw2YT_LZeC5g472XkNCfJhma76xah=Yyq6A@mail.gmail.com%3e


> On Sep 29, 2016, at 1:02 PM, Kirk Lund <kl...@apache.org> wrote:
> 
> What changes are we still waiting on to cut the next RC of Geode 1.0?
> 
> Is there a way to create a branch for Geode 1.0 develop that allows folks
> to continue working on post-1.0 features or bug fixes without destabilizing
> Geode 1.0? This way, only the necessary changes for Geode 1.0 would go to
> the 1.0 branch?
> 
> -Kirk