drill-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Sudheesh Katkam <skat...@maprtech.com>
Subject Re: Time for a 1.9 Release?
Date Mon, 07 Nov 2016 22:14:36 GMT
Yes, I meant DRILL-4730; let’s resolve the ticket after the release when we have more time
to review.

Currently, rc0 is held up by a regression [1].

Thank you,
Sudheesh

[1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DRILL-5009 <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DRILL-5009>

> On Nov 4, 2016, at 9:56 PM, Laurent Goujon <laurent@dremio.com> wrote:
> 
> I guess it's DRILL-4730 and not DRILL-4370
> 
> On Fri, Nov 4, 2016 at 6:23 PM, Sudheesh Katkam <sudheesh@apache.org> wrote:
> 
>> Out of the 17 requested tickets, we resolved 13 over the week, and 4 have
>> been deferred (DRILL-4280, DRILL-4858, DRILL-4370, DRILL-4706). Thank you
>> everyone!
>> 
>> I get will get the RC0 out on Monday.
>> 
>> - Sudheesh
>> 
>> On Fri, Nov 4, 2016 at 11:49 AM, Jinfeng Ni <jni@apache.org> wrote:
>> 
>>> Agreed with Parth that we probably should start a separate thread to
>>> discuss release version number after 1.9.0.
>>> 
>>> I'll start a new thread to discuss that, and leave this thread for
>>> drill 1.9.0 release matters.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Thu, Nov 3, 2016 at 3:53 PM, Sudheesh Katkam <sudheesh@apache.org>
>>> wrote:
>>>> Gentle reminder that all check-ins should be done by tomorrow. Please
>> see
>>>> the latest statuses of commits that we are targeting:
>>>> 
>>>> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1UJSXLrfUNZwUnx_
>>>> JzkwAcXSxmcbG7meBDad6ZTxlSmw
>>>> 
>>>> Thank you,
>>>> Sudheesh
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> On Tue, Nov 1, 2016 at 11:19 AM, Sudheesh Katkam <sudheesh@apache.org>
>>>> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> The current list of candidate commits for the release is here:
>>>>> 
>>>>> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1UJSXLrfUNZwUnx_
>>>>> JzkwAcXSxmcbG7meBDad6ZTxlSmw
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> On Mon, Oct 31, 2016 at 8:53 AM, Subbu Srinivasan <
>>> ssrinivasan@zscaler.com
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> +1.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> On Sun, Oct 30, 2016 at 10:23 PM, Paul Rogers <progers@maprtech.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> For release numbers, 1.10 (then 1.11, 1.12, …) seems like a
good
>>> idea.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> At first it may seem odd to go to 1.10 from 1.9. Might people
get
>>>>>> confused
>>>>>>> between 1.10 and 1.1.0? But, there is precedence. Tomcat’s
latest
>>>>>> 7-series
>>>>>>> release is 7.0.72. Java is on 8u112. And so on.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> I like the idea of moving to 2.0 later when the team introduces
a
>>> major
>>>>>>> change, rather than by default just because the numbers roll
>> around.
>>> For
>>>>>>> example, Hadoop when to 2.x when YARN was introduced. Impala
>> appears
>>> to
>>>>>>> have moved to 2.0 when they added Spill to disk for some (all?)
>>>>>> operators.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> - Paul
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> On Oct 28, 2016, at 10:34 AM, Sudheesh Katkam <
>> sudheesh@apache.org
>>>> 
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Hi Drillers,
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> We have a reasonable number of fixes and features since the
last
>>>>>> release
>>>>>>>> [1]. Releasing itself takes a while; so I propose we start
the
>> 1.9
>>>>>>> release
>>>>>>>> process.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> I volunteer as the release manager, unless there are objections.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> We should also discuss what the release version number should
be
>>> after
>>>>>>> 1.9.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Thank you,
>>>>>>>> Sudheesh
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DRILL/fixforversion/
>>>>>> 12337861
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>> 
>> 


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