hadoop-common-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Raghu Angadi <rang...@yahoo-inc.com>
Subject Re: Hadoop 0.19.1
Date Sat, 07 Feb 2009 00:34:59 GMT

+1 to branching described above. Good to see experimental branches 
considered not-too-evil.

7) If something is not covered in 1-6 common sense should prevail :-)

Raghu.

Doug Cutting wrote:
> Konstantin Shvachko wrote:
>> +1. I agree: no review requirement for feature branches, and 1-5.
>> I would add to this (6) merging a feature branch to an official branch
>> goes through regular patch process, that is, a new jira is created with
>> the patch attachment, which now goes through the review process.
> 
> Yes, I forgot (6).  But I don't think a new Jira is required.  The 
> branch is equivalent to a patch.  If folks review and +1 it, then it can 
> be merged to trunk.  An branch-backed issue shouldn't be marked as 
> "patch available" until it's ready to be reviewed.  Once it has been 
> merged to trunk then the branch can be removed.
> 
>>> Note that we do *not* want feature branches in external repositories, 
>>> since commits there would not generate commit messages to the dev 
>>> list nor would they generate links in Jira, etc.
>>
>> Didn't understand this: external to what? What is internal repository?
> 
> External to Apache's SVN, i.e., a Git repo on your own server.
> 
> Doug


Mime
View raw message