You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@mina.apache.org by Jonathan Valliere <jo...@apache.org> on 2019/04/25 16:27:21 UTC
Call to Vote on Branch Name Changes
I'd like to call a vote on the following proposal for branch changes for
MINA.
1. Rename 2.1 to 2.1.X because 2.1 is our root branch from which 2.1.1
and 2.1.2 spawn. The HEAD of 2.1.X should represent the current unreleased
version in the 2.1 track.
2. Rename 2.0 to 2.0.X because 2.0 is our root branch from which 2.0.16+
spawn. The HEAD of 2.0.X should represent the current unreleased version
in the 2.0 track.
3. Remove 2.1.0 because it tracks 2.1.X and prefer to use tags for
specific versions unless there is a specific reason why new maintenance
branches are required.
Thank you for your consideration,
-Jon
Re: Call to Vote on Branch Name Changes
Posted by Jeff MAURY <je...@gmail.com>.
+1
Jeff
Le mer. 1 mai 2019 à 14:07, Jonathan Valliere <jo...@apache.org> a écrit :
> Is that it? Just two votes?
>
> On Thu, Apr 25, 2019 at 2:13 PM Jonathan Valliere <jon.valliere@emoten.com
> >
> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Apr 25, 2019 at 2:10 PM Emmanuel Lecharny <el...@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Le jeu. 25 avr. 2019 à 18:27, Jonathan Valliere <jo...@apache.org> a
> >> écrit :
> >>
> >> > I'd like to call a vote on the following proposal for branch changes
> for
> >> > MINA.
> >> >
> >> > 1. Rename 2.1 to 2.1.X because 2.1 is our root branch from which
> >> 2.1.1
> >> > and 2.1.2 spawn. The HEAD of 2.1.X should represent the current
> >> > unreleased
> >> > version in the 2.1 track.
> >>
> >>
> >> +1
> >>
> >>
> >> > 2. Rename 2.0 to 2.0.X because 2.0 is our root branch from which
> >> 2.0.16+
> >> > spawn. The HEAD of 2.0.X should represent the current unreleased
> >> > version
> >> > in the 2.0 track.
> >>
> >>
> >> +1
> >>
> >>
> >> > 3. Remove 2.1.0 because it tracks 2.1.X and prefer to use tags for
> >> > specific versions unless there is a specific reason why new
> >> maintenance
> >> > branches are
> >>
> >>
> >> Being far from my computer, I can’t check what this 2.1.0 is. From the
> top
> >> of my head, it’s a tag, but if it’s a branch, then it’s bad. We need to
> >> clarify that.
> >
> >
> > 2.1.0 is a branch currently. Update proposal to remove the 2.1.0 branch
> > after making sure 2.1 and 2.1.0 are at the same HEAD.
> >
> >
> >>
> >> Thanks for the proposals, they make a lot if sense.
> >>
> >> We probably should also decide something related to 3.X: I don’t think
> it
> >> will go any farther, and we may need this 3.X for the future evolutions.
> >> --
> >> Regards,
> >> Cordialement,
> >> Emmanuel Lécharny
> >> www.iktek.com
> >>
> > --
> >
> > CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: The contents of this email message and any
> > attachments are intended solely for the addressee(s) and may contain
> > confidential and/or privileged information and may be legally protected
> > from disclosure.
> >
>
Re: Call to Vote on Branch Name Changes
Posted by Emmanuel Lecharny <el...@apache.org>.
Please proceed!
Le sam. 4 mai 2019 à 02:28, Jonathan Valliere <jo...@apache.org> a écrit :
> Okay, looks like we have 4 votes with Emmanuel Lecharny, Jean-François
> Maury, Jeff Genender, and Jonathan Valliere
>
> Emmanuel, do you want to make these changes or should I?
>
> On Wed, May 1, 2019 at 11:29 AM Jonathan Valliere <jon.valliere@emoten.com
> >
> wrote:
>
> > Will do next time.
> >
> > On Wed, May 1, 2019 at 11:29 AM Jeff Genender <jg...@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Put a "[VOTE]" on the beginning of the subject line so it gets people’s
> >> attention better. This thread looks more like a discussion than a vote.
> >> But if it is a vote...
> >>
> >> +1
> >>
> >> Jeff
> >>
> >>
> >> > On May 1, 2019, at 6:06 AM, Jonathan Valliere <jo...@apache.org>
> >> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Is that it? Just two votes?
> >> >
> >> > On Thu, Apr 25, 2019 at 2:13 PM Jonathan Valliere <
> >> jon.valliere@emoten.com>
> >> > wrote:
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> On Thu, Apr 25, 2019 at 2:10 PM Emmanuel Lecharny <
> >> elecharny@apache.org>
> >> >> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >>> Le jeu. 25 avr. 2019 à 18:27, Jonathan Valliere <johnnyv@apache.org
> >
> >> a
> >> >>> écrit :
> >> >>>
> >> >>>> I'd like to call a vote on the following proposal for branch
> changes
> >> for
> >> >>>> MINA.
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> 1. Rename 2.1 to 2.1.X because 2.1 is our root branch from which
> >> >>> 2.1.1
> >> >>>> and 2.1.2 spawn. The HEAD of 2.1.X should represent the current
> >> >>>> unreleased
> >> >>>> version in the 2.1 track.
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>> +1
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>>> 2. Rename 2.0 to 2.0.X because 2.0 is our root branch from which
> >> >>> 2.0.16+
> >> >>>> spawn. The HEAD of 2.0.X should represent the current unreleased
> >> >>>> version
> >> >>>> in the 2.0 track.
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>> +1
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>>> 3. Remove 2.1.0 because it tracks 2.1.X and prefer to use tags
> for
> >> >>>> specific versions unless there is a specific reason why new
> >> >>> maintenance
> >> >>>> branches are
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Being far from my computer, I can’t check what this 2.1.0 is. From
> >> the top
> >> >>> of my head, it’s a tag, but if it’s a branch, then it’s bad. We need
> >> to
> >> >>> clarify that.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> 2.1.0 is a branch currently. Update proposal to remove the 2.1.0
> >> branch
> >> >> after making sure 2.1 and 2.1.0 are at the same HEAD.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Thanks for the proposals, they make a lot if sense.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> We probably should also decide something related to 3.X: I don’t
> >> think it
> >> >>> will go any farther, and we may need this 3.X for the future
> >> evolutions.
> >> >>> --
> >> >>> Regards,
> >> >>> Cordialement,
> >> >>> Emmanuel Lécharny
> >> >>> www.iktek.com
> >> >>>
> >> >> --
> >> >>
> >> >> CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: The contents of this email message and any
> >> >> attachments are intended solely for the addressee(s) and may contain
> >> >> confidential and/or privileged information and may be legally
> protected
> >> >> from disclosure.
> >> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >
> > CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: The contents of this email message and any
> > attachments are intended solely for the addressee(s) and may contain
> > confidential and/or privileged information and may be legally protected
> > from disclosure.
> >
>
--
Regards,
Cordialement,
Emmanuel Lécharny
www.iktek.com
Re: Call to Vote on Branch Name Changes
Posted by Jonathan Valliere <jo...@apache.org>.
Okay, looks like we have 4 votes with Emmanuel Lecharny, Jean-François
Maury, Jeff Genender, and Jonathan Valliere
Emmanuel, do you want to make these changes or should I?
On Wed, May 1, 2019 at 11:29 AM Jonathan Valliere <jo...@emoten.com>
wrote:
> Will do next time.
>
> On Wed, May 1, 2019 at 11:29 AM Jeff Genender <jg...@apache.org>
> wrote:
>
>> Put a "[VOTE]" on the beginning of the subject line so it gets people’s
>> attention better. This thread looks more like a discussion than a vote.
>> But if it is a vote...
>>
>> +1
>>
>> Jeff
>>
>>
>> > On May 1, 2019, at 6:06 AM, Jonathan Valliere <jo...@apache.org>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > Is that it? Just two votes?
>> >
>> > On Thu, Apr 25, 2019 at 2:13 PM Jonathan Valliere <
>> jon.valliere@emoten.com>
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On Thu, Apr 25, 2019 at 2:10 PM Emmanuel Lecharny <
>> elecharny@apache.org>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> Le jeu. 25 avr. 2019 à 18:27, Jonathan Valliere <jo...@apache.org>
>> a
>> >>> écrit :
>> >>>
>> >>>> I'd like to call a vote on the following proposal for branch changes
>> for
>> >>>> MINA.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> 1. Rename 2.1 to 2.1.X because 2.1 is our root branch from which
>> >>> 2.1.1
>> >>>> and 2.1.2 spawn. The HEAD of 2.1.X should represent the current
>> >>>> unreleased
>> >>>> version in the 2.1 track.
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> +1
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>> 2. Rename 2.0 to 2.0.X because 2.0 is our root branch from which
>> >>> 2.0.16+
>> >>>> spawn. The HEAD of 2.0.X should represent the current unreleased
>> >>>> version
>> >>>> in the 2.0 track.
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> +1
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>> 3. Remove 2.1.0 because it tracks 2.1.X and prefer to use tags for
>> >>>> specific versions unless there is a specific reason why new
>> >>> maintenance
>> >>>> branches are
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> Being far from my computer, I can’t check what this 2.1.0 is. From
>> the top
>> >>> of my head, it’s a tag, but if it’s a branch, then it’s bad. We need
>> to
>> >>> clarify that.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> 2.1.0 is a branch currently. Update proposal to remove the 2.1.0
>> branch
>> >> after making sure 2.1 and 2.1.0 are at the same HEAD.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>>
>> >>> Thanks for the proposals, they make a lot if sense.
>> >>>
>> >>> We probably should also decide something related to 3.X: I don’t
>> think it
>> >>> will go any farther, and we may need this 3.X for the future
>> evolutions.
>> >>> --
>> >>> Regards,
>> >>> Cordialement,
>> >>> Emmanuel Lécharny
>> >>> www.iktek.com
>> >>>
>> >> --
>> >>
>> >> CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: The contents of this email message and any
>> >> attachments are intended solely for the addressee(s) and may contain
>> >> confidential and/or privileged information and may be legally protected
>> >> from disclosure.
>> >>
>>
>> --
>
> CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: The contents of this email message and any
> attachments are intended solely for the addressee(s) and may contain
> confidential and/or privileged information and may be legally protected
> from disclosure.
>
Re: Call to Vote on Branch Name Changes
Posted by Jonathan Valliere <jo...@emoten.com>.
Will do next time.
On Wed, May 1, 2019 at 11:29 AM Jeff Genender <jg...@apache.org> wrote:
> Put a "[VOTE]" on the beginning of the subject line so it gets people’s
> attention better. This thread looks more like a discussion than a vote.
> But if it is a vote...
>
> +1
>
> Jeff
>
>
> > On May 1, 2019, at 6:06 AM, Jonathan Valliere <jo...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> >
> > Is that it? Just two votes?
> >
> > On Thu, Apr 25, 2019 at 2:13 PM Jonathan Valliere <
> jon.valliere@emoten.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> On Thu, Apr 25, 2019 at 2:10 PM Emmanuel Lecharny <elecharny@apache.org
> >
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Le jeu. 25 avr. 2019 à 18:27, Jonathan Valliere <jo...@apache.org> a
> >>> écrit :
> >>>
> >>>> I'd like to call a vote on the following proposal for branch changes
> for
> >>>> MINA.
> >>>>
> >>>> 1. Rename 2.1 to 2.1.X because 2.1 is our root branch from which
> >>> 2.1.1
> >>>> and 2.1.2 spawn. The HEAD of 2.1.X should represent the current
> >>>> unreleased
> >>>> version in the 2.1 track.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> +1
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> 2. Rename 2.0 to 2.0.X because 2.0 is our root branch from which
> >>> 2.0.16+
> >>>> spawn. The HEAD of 2.0.X should represent the current unreleased
> >>>> version
> >>>> in the 2.0 track.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> +1
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> 3. Remove 2.1.0 because it tracks 2.1.X and prefer to use tags for
> >>>> specific versions unless there is a specific reason why new
> >>> maintenance
> >>>> branches are
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Being far from my computer, I can’t check what this 2.1.0 is. From the
> top
> >>> of my head, it’s a tag, but if it’s a branch, then it’s bad. We need to
> >>> clarify that.
> >>
> >>
> >> 2.1.0 is a branch currently. Update proposal to remove the 2.1.0 branch
> >> after making sure 2.1 and 2.1.0 are at the same HEAD.
> >>
> >>
> >>>
> >>> Thanks for the proposals, they make a lot if sense.
> >>>
> >>> We probably should also decide something related to 3.X: I don’t think
> it
> >>> will go any farther, and we may need this 3.X for the future
> evolutions.
> >>> --
> >>> Regards,
> >>> Cordialement,
> >>> Emmanuel Lécharny
> >>> www.iktek.com
> >>>
> >> --
> >>
> >> CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: The contents of this email message and any
> >> attachments are intended solely for the addressee(s) and may contain
> >> confidential and/or privileged information and may be legally protected
> >> from disclosure.
> >>
>
> --
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: The contents of this email message and any
attachments are intended solely for the addressee(s) and may contain
confidential and/or privileged information and may be legally protected
from disclosure.
Re: Call to Vote on Branch Name Changes
Posted by Jeff Genender <jg...@apache.org>.
Put a "[VOTE]" on the beginning of the subject line so it gets people’s attention better. This thread looks more like a discussion than a vote. But if it is a vote...
+1
Jeff
> On May 1, 2019, at 6:06 AM, Jonathan Valliere <jo...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> Is that it? Just two votes?
>
> On Thu, Apr 25, 2019 at 2:13 PM Jonathan Valliere <jo...@emoten.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Apr 25, 2019 at 2:10 PM Emmanuel Lecharny <el...@apache.org>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Le jeu. 25 avr. 2019 à 18:27, Jonathan Valliere <jo...@apache.org> a
>>> écrit :
>>>
>>>> I'd like to call a vote on the following proposal for branch changes for
>>>> MINA.
>>>>
>>>> 1. Rename 2.1 to 2.1.X because 2.1 is our root branch from which
>>> 2.1.1
>>>> and 2.1.2 spawn. The HEAD of 2.1.X should represent the current
>>>> unreleased
>>>> version in the 2.1 track.
>>>
>>>
>>> +1
>>>
>>>
>>>> 2. Rename 2.0 to 2.0.X because 2.0 is our root branch from which
>>> 2.0.16+
>>>> spawn. The HEAD of 2.0.X should represent the current unreleased
>>>> version
>>>> in the 2.0 track.
>>>
>>>
>>> +1
>>>
>>>
>>>> 3. Remove 2.1.0 because it tracks 2.1.X and prefer to use tags for
>>>> specific versions unless there is a specific reason why new
>>> maintenance
>>>> branches are
>>>
>>>
>>> Being far from my computer, I can’t check what this 2.1.0 is. From the top
>>> of my head, it’s a tag, but if it’s a branch, then it’s bad. We need to
>>> clarify that.
>>
>>
>> 2.1.0 is a branch currently. Update proposal to remove the 2.1.0 branch
>> after making sure 2.1 and 2.1.0 are at the same HEAD.
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Thanks for the proposals, they make a lot if sense.
>>>
>>> We probably should also decide something related to 3.X: I don’t think it
>>> will go any farther, and we may need this 3.X for the future evolutions.
>>> --
>>> Regards,
>>> Cordialement,
>>> Emmanuel Lécharny
>>> www.iktek.com
>>>
>> --
>>
>> CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: The contents of this email message and any
>> attachments are intended solely for the addressee(s) and may contain
>> confidential and/or privileged information and may be legally protected
>> from disclosure.
>>
Re: Call to Vote on Branch Name Changes
Posted by Jonathan Valliere <jo...@apache.org>.
Is that it? Just two votes?
On Thu, Apr 25, 2019 at 2:13 PM Jonathan Valliere <jo...@emoten.com>
wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, Apr 25, 2019 at 2:10 PM Emmanuel Lecharny <el...@apache.org>
> wrote:
>
>> Le jeu. 25 avr. 2019 à 18:27, Jonathan Valliere <jo...@apache.org> a
>> écrit :
>>
>> > I'd like to call a vote on the following proposal for branch changes for
>> > MINA.
>> >
>> > 1. Rename 2.1 to 2.1.X because 2.1 is our root branch from which
>> 2.1.1
>> > and 2.1.2 spawn. The HEAD of 2.1.X should represent the current
>> > unreleased
>> > version in the 2.1 track.
>>
>>
>> +1
>>
>>
>> > 2. Rename 2.0 to 2.0.X because 2.0 is our root branch from which
>> 2.0.16+
>> > spawn. The HEAD of 2.0.X should represent the current unreleased
>> > version
>> > in the 2.0 track.
>>
>>
>> +1
>>
>>
>> > 3. Remove 2.1.0 because it tracks 2.1.X and prefer to use tags for
>> > specific versions unless there is a specific reason why new
>> maintenance
>> > branches are
>>
>>
>> Being far from my computer, I can’t check what this 2.1.0 is. From the top
>> of my head, it’s a tag, but if it’s a branch, then it’s bad. We need to
>> clarify that.
>
>
> 2.1.0 is a branch currently. Update proposal to remove the 2.1.0 branch
> after making sure 2.1 and 2.1.0 are at the same HEAD.
>
>
>>
>> Thanks for the proposals, they make a lot if sense.
>>
>> We probably should also decide something related to 3.X: I don’t think it
>> will go any farther, and we may need this 3.X for the future evolutions.
>> --
>> Regards,
>> Cordialement,
>> Emmanuel Lécharny
>> www.iktek.com
>>
> --
>
> CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: The contents of this email message and any
> attachments are intended solely for the addressee(s) and may contain
> confidential and/or privileged information and may be legally protected
> from disclosure.
>
Re: Call to Vote on Branch Name Changes
Posted by Jonathan Valliere <jo...@emoten.com>.
On Thu, Apr 25, 2019 at 2:10 PM Emmanuel Lecharny <el...@apache.org>
wrote:
> Le jeu. 25 avr. 2019 à 18:27, Jonathan Valliere <jo...@apache.org> a
> écrit :
>
> > I'd like to call a vote on the following proposal for branch changes for
> > MINA.
> >
> > 1. Rename 2.1 to 2.1.X because 2.1 is our root branch from which 2.1.1
> > and 2.1.2 spawn. The HEAD of 2.1.X should represent the current
> > unreleased
> > version in the 2.1 track.
>
>
> +1
>
>
> > 2. Rename 2.0 to 2.0.X because 2.0 is our root branch from which
> 2.0.16+
> > spawn. The HEAD of 2.0.X should represent the current unreleased
> > version
> > in the 2.0 track.
>
>
> +1
>
>
> > 3. Remove 2.1.0 because it tracks 2.1.X and prefer to use tags for
> > specific versions unless there is a specific reason why new
> maintenance
> > branches are
>
>
> Being far from my computer, I can’t check what this 2.1.0 is. From the top
> of my head, it’s a tag, but if it’s a branch, then it’s bad. We need to
> clarify that.
2.1.0 is a branch currently. Update proposal to remove the 2.1.0 branch
after making sure 2.1 and 2.1.0 are at the same HEAD.
>
> Thanks for the proposals, they make a lot if sense.
>
> We probably should also decide something related to 3.X: I don’t think it
> will go any farther, and we may need this 3.X for the future evolutions.
> --
> Regards,
> Cordialement,
> Emmanuel Lécharny
> www.iktek.com
>
--
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: The contents of this email message and any
attachments are intended solely for the addressee(s) and may contain
confidential and/or privileged information and may be legally protected
from disclosure.
Re: Call to Vote on Branch Name Changes
Posted by Emmanuel Lecharny <el...@apache.org>.
Le jeu. 25 avr. 2019 à 18:27, Jonathan Valliere <jo...@apache.org> a
écrit :
> I'd like to call a vote on the following proposal for branch changes for
> MINA.
>
> 1. Rename 2.1 to 2.1.X because 2.1 is our root branch from which 2.1.1
> and 2.1.2 spawn. The HEAD of 2.1.X should represent the current
> unreleased
> version in the 2.1 track.
+1
> 2. Rename 2.0 to 2.0.X because 2.0 is our root branch from which 2.0.16+
> spawn. The HEAD of 2.0.X should represent the current unreleased
> version
> in the 2.0 track.
+1
> 3. Remove 2.1.0 because it tracks 2.1.X and prefer to use tags for
> specific versions unless there is a specific reason why new maintenance
> branches are
Being far from my computer, I can’t check what this 2.1.0 is. From the top
of my head, it’s a tag, but if it’s a branch, then it’s bad. We need to
clarify that.
Thanks for the proposals, they make a lot if sense.
We probably should also decide something related to 3.X: I don’t think it
will go any farther, and we may need this 3.X for the future evolutions.
--
Regards,
Cordialement,
Emmanuel Lécharny
www.iktek.com