Return-Path: X-Original-To: apmail-hadoop-hdfs-dev-archive@minotaur.apache.org Delivered-To: apmail-hadoop-hdfs-dev-archive@minotaur.apache.org Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by minotaur.apache.org (Postfix) with SMTP id DE4328679 for ; Thu, 18 Aug 2011 21:12:31 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 79591 invoked by uid 500); 18 Aug 2011 21:12:31 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-hadoop-hdfs-dev-archive@hadoop.apache.org Received: (qmail 79298 invoked by uid 500); 18 Aug 2011 21:12:30 -0000 Mailing-List: contact hdfs-dev-help@hadoop.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: hdfs-dev@hadoop.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list hdfs-dev@hadoop.apache.org Received: (qmail 79284 invoked by uid 99); 18 Aug 2011 21:12:30 -0000 Received: from nike.apache.org (HELO nike.apache.org) (192.87.106.230) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Thu, 18 Aug 2011 21:12:30 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.7 required=5.0 tests=RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of todd@cloudera.com designates 209.85.161.176 as permitted sender) Received: from [209.85.161.176] (HELO mail-gx0-f176.google.com) (209.85.161.176) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Thu, 18 Aug 2011 21:12:24 +0000 Received: by gxk7 with SMTP id 7so2495057gxk.35 for ; Thu, 18 Aug 2011 14:12:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.101.213.23 with SMTP id p23mr1274167anq.126.1313701923147; Thu, 18 Aug 2011 14:12:03 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.100.205.8 with HTTP; Thu, 18 Aug 2011 14:11:43 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: From: Todd Lipcon Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2011 14:11:43 -0700 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Changing artifact version in common and HDFS on HA branch? To: hdfs-dev@hadoop.apache.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org On Thu, Aug 18, 2011 at 2:01 PM, Eli Collins wrote: > Will mavenized HDFS help here? Probably. > > Seems like we should rebase the HA patches atop 23 when that's > branched since I suspect there will be a lot of trunk -> 23 and trunk > -> ha changes. I've been doing occasional merges from trunk->HA, and I guess we'll switch that over to doing 23->HA merges? Then anything that needs to go to HA would have to go trunk -> 23 -> HA, right? -Todd -- Todd Lipcon Software Engineer, Cloudera