accumulo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jesse Yates <>
Subject Re: Branching
Date Tue, 01 Nov 2011 03:48:27 GMT
I'm okay with branching the current trunk into 1.4.

Here is the link to the current issues for

My only concern is how the numbering for releases works. Is it that odd is
dev and even is public release? Or are all 1.X considered public releases
and then 1.X.Y is the minor dev release? We probably should establish our
plans on this so we have a community standard for doing the versions
(though we can always change it later.

--Jesse Yates
Jesse Yates

On Thu, Oct 27, 2011 at 10:38 AM, John W Vines <>wrote:

> There has been some discussion about branching 1.4. There have been some
> rounds of testing done against a few iterations and we're trying to wind it
> down so we can be prepared for release. Unofficially we've been operating
> under a semi-feature freeze to avoid larger disruptions to the testing. For
> the sake of openness though, we seriously need to formally declare a
> feature freeze. I feel the best way to do this is to branch 1.4, this way
> 1.5 feature development can continue while we root out large scale testing
> bugs in the 1.4 branch.
> Mentors- How long is an appropriate time to wait between announcing and
> carrying forward with branching? Should we put it up to vote or is simply
> no one objecting to branching within the timeframe sufficient?
> Everyone- I think we've done a fairly good job labeling tickets as to
> whether they're 1.4 or 1.5. There are still some tickets which are marked
> 1.4, I think, which could/should be pushed on to 1.5 instead of holding
> back 1.4. In case of this, please open up discussions on the tickets so we
> can come to a decision on a case by case basis. There are a few items of
> discussion, particularly
> which both involve
> packaging of Accumulo. I feel the best way to deal with these tickets in
> 1.4 is as follows-
> If the packaging for them is done before we do the final update for 1.4
> (which we will determine after sufficient testing of the frozen product)
> and they do not interfere with standard operating procedure, I think we
> should include them in 1.4 as the impact of these pom changes is very small
> but the impact could be large. However, I don't think we should be left
> waiting for these changes if they are the only things left.
> Please discuss!
> John

  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message