drill-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jinfeng Ni <...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Time for a 1.9 Release?
Date Fri, 04 Nov 2016 18:49:59 GMT
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
View raw message