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 <[email protected]> wrote: > +1 to including docs > > On Wed, Oct 5, 2016 at 12:48 PM Anthony Baker <[email protected]> wrote: > >> +1 for including docs in the release >> >> Anthony >> >> > On Oct 4, 2016, at 11:52 AM, Swapnil Bawaskar <[email protected]> >> 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 <[email protected]> >> > 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 <[email protected]> >> >> wrote: >> >> >> >>> +1 >> >>> >> >>> On Fri, Sep 30, 2016 at 9:16 AM, Kenneth Howe <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> >> >>>> +1 >> >>>> >> >>>>> On Sep 29, 2016, at 2:31 PM, Jacob Barrett <[email protected]> >> >>> wrote: >> >>>>> >> >>>>> +1 for creating branch now to prevent feature creep. >> >>>>> >> >>>>> On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 2:10 PM Kirk Lund <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> >> >>>> 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 <[email protected] >> >>>>>> <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 >> >>> >> >> >> >> >> >>
