bookkeeper-distributedlog-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Sijie Guo <si...@apache.org>
Subject Re: [DISCUSSION] First Release
Date Thu, 17 Nov 2016 05:12:16 GMT
Flavio,

I totally agreed that not using an official Apache  version is not great
for the community. We had a bookkeeper meetup last night. We've discussed
the current situation with the community. We came to a commitment to merge
Twitter's branch back into bookkeeper 4.5. After that we won't maintain our
own branch and switch to 4.5.

Hope this make sense.

Sijie

On Nov 16, 2016 8:04 PM, "Flavio Junqueira" <fpj@apache.org> wrote:

It isn't great that DistributedLog is not using the Apache BookKeeper
release. Essentially anyone using DistributedLog today needs to use the
Twitter branch of BookKeeper, which has diverged from Apache BookKeeper.
I'm sure the changes in the Twitter branch are all great, but I'd be more
comfortable being able to rely on the Apache BookKeeper releases, which are
community driven.

I'm not going to block the release on this alone because it is important
for this project to get a first release out soon, but we need to fix DL-2.

-Flavio

> On 15 Nov 2016, at 19:02, Leigh Stewart <lstewart@twitter.com.INVALID>
wrote:
>
> +1
>
> On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 7:01 PM, Franck Cuny <franck.cuny@gmail.com>
wrote:
>
>> +1 and I agree to not make DL-2 a blocker.
>>
>> On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 2:02 AM, Xi Liu <xi.liu.ant@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> +1 especially on DL-23.
>>>
>>> - Xi
>>>
>>> On Sat, Nov 12, 2016 at 2:22 AM, Khurrum Nasim <khurrumnasimm@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> +1 (non-binding)
>>>>
>>>> I am also interested in participating.
>>>>
>>>> - kn
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Nov 8, 2016 at 11:08 PM, Sijie Guo <sijie@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I'd like to start the discussion about the first release. There are
>>>> still a
>>>>> few discussions and pull requests outstanding. I think we need to
>> pick
>>>> up a
>>>>> few items and cut the first release and then iterate from there. Here
>>> is
>>>> a
>>>>> list of items that I think we should include:
>>>>>
>>>>> - DL-4 <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DL-4>: Repackaging
>>>> namespace
>>>>> to org.apache (the pull request is out and under reviewing)
>>>>> - DL-49 <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DL-49>: support
scala
>>>> 2.10
>>>>> and 2.11 (the review is done, need to be merged)
>>>>> - DL-23 <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DL-23>: Move DL
to
>>> depend
>>>>> on
>>>>> central maven repo. The main blocker is about the libthrift version,
>>>> which
>>>>> is only hosted at twtter's maven repo. There is a pull request out.
>>>>>
>>>>> I am kind of thinking to not make DL-2
>>>>> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DL-2> (using the official
>>>>> bookkeeper
>>>>> version) the blocker for the first release. We can cut a new release
>>> once
>>>>> that change is ready. So to decouple the release procedure between DL
>>> and
>>>>> BK.
>>>>>
>>>>> Please feel free to add any jiras that you believe it should be
>>> included
>>>> in
>>>>> the first release.
>>>>>
>>>>> Also, is there anyone interested in being the release manager for
>> first
>>>>> release?
>>>>>
>>>>> - Sijie
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> -franck
>>

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