hawq-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Lei Chang <lei_ch...@apache.org>
Subject Re: [VOTE] HAWQ 2.0.0-incubating Release
Date Thu, 07 Jul 2016 07:47:16 GMT
Since this is blocking the release and this release is only for IP cleanup,
and considering the version number change and merge or a new branch is just
a minor issue, I think the easiest way is to create a new branch
"2.0.0.0-incubating" and unblock the release.

And for future releases, merge makes more sense.

Cheers
Lei


On Thu, Jul 7, 2016 at 2:00 PM, Radar Da lei <rlei@pivotal.io> wrote:

> Another benefit to recreate the branch is if we finally decide to use
> 4-digits version. We should create the branch name as '2.0.0.0-incubating'.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Regards,
> Radar
>
> On Thu, Jul 7, 2016 at 10:36 AM, Vineet Goel <vvineet@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > Radar,
> >
> > I understand that we have a clean slate right now in terms of releases,
> so
> > it's not a huge issue re-creating the branch. However, going forward, we
> > should follow the process to be able to do proper release management and
> > change control.
> >
> > So, should we make an exception for this one time in the spirit of
> getting
> > our first release out asap?
> > I think Goden, as the release manager should make that call.
> >
> > Thanks
> > -Vineet
> >
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Jul 6, 2016 at 7:02 PM, Radar Da lei <rlei@pivotal.io> wrote:
> >
> > > Hi Vineet,
> > >
> > > Merge or re-create the branch is almost the same for our current
> status.
> > >
> > > Re-create the branch can make all our good changes in, and it's more
> > clear,
> > > users can easy find out where it cut out, just following one version
> > change
> > > commit.
> > >
> > > Anyway, I'm fine with each way. Thanks.
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > > Radar
> > >
> > > On Thu, Jul 7, 2016 at 9:50 AM, Vineet Goel <vvineet@apache.org>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Radar,
> > > >
> > > > The whole point of cutting a branch was to stabilize it for the first
> > > > release. Why would we discard it and start a new one from master? Any
> > > > changes since the 2.0.0-incubating branch needs to go in the next
> > release
> > > > scope (unless selective back-porting is necessary to meet the first
> > > release
> > > > scope).
> > > >
> > > > Thanks
> > > > -Vineet
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Jul 6, 2016 at 6:39 PM, Radar Da lei <rlei@pivotal.io>
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Since we have a lot of commits for this release after creating the
> > > > branch.
> > > > > I will re-create the branch. So the first blocking issue is gone.
> > > Nothing
> > > > > need to be merged.
> > > > >
> > > > > Any concerns, please let me know. Thanks.
> > > > >
> > > > > Regards,
> > > > > Radar
> > > > >
> > > > > On Thu, Jul 7, 2016 at 2:04 AM, Ting(Goden) Yao <tyao@pivotal.io>
> > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > So we have 2 blocking issues:
> > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HAWQ-867  (need to port
> this
> > > to
> > > > > > incubating branch)
> > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HAWQ-892  (version naming
> > > issue)
> > > > > > Anyone can help to resolve them, please reply ASAP.
> > > > > > -Goden
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Tue, Jul 5, 2016 at 5:59 PM Ting(Goden) Yao <tyao@pivotal.io>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > We found an issue during discussion:
> > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HAWQ-892
> > > > > > > We need to contain "incubating" in the version and hawq
> --version
> > > > > > command.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Thanks
> > > > > > > -Goden
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Tue, Jul 5, 2016 at 10:24 AM Ting(Goden) Yao <
> tyao@pivotal.io
> > >
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> @Roman - for this JIRA, per Lei's suggestion, it's
not
> blocking
> > > this
> > > > > > >> release (as no IP issues) , so I'll update the release
info in
> > the
> > > > > JIRA.
> > > > > > >> HAWQ-783 <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HAWQ-783>
> > Remove
> > > > > > quicklz
> > > > > > >> in medadata
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> On Tue, Jul 5, 2016 at 10:22 AM Ting(Goden) Yao <
> > tyao@pivotal.io>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>> Thanks Guo, for your info. This JIRA was not marked
in this
> > > > release.
> > > > > so
> > > > > > >>> next time, if you think this is required, please
mark it for
> > the
> > > > > > release
> > > > > > >>> and contact release manager ASAP.
> > > > > > >>> I'm checking this JIRA for details but I see it
is closed
> > > already.
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>> On Tue, Jul 5, 2016 at 10:20 AM Roman Shaposhnik
<
> > > > > roman@shaposhnik.org
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >>> wrote:
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>>> On Tue, Jul 5, 2016 at 2:25 AM, Guo Gang <paulguo@gmail.com
> >
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >>>> > Goden, It seems that we need all of the
features could be
> > > > compiled
> > > > > > in
> > > > > > >>>> > source tarball (i.e. non-git workspace)
before the
> release,
> > > but
> > > > > this
> > > > > > >>>> seems
> > > > > > >>>> > to be not the case in the tarball. See
JIRA HAWQ-867
> > (Replace
> > > > the
> > > > > > >>>> > git-submobule mechanism with git-clone).
I think we need a
> > new
> > > > > > source
> > > > > > >>>> > version.
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>> Guo, Goden, it would be great if you guys could
help all of
> us
> > > > > follow
> > > > > > >>>> this
> > > > > > >>>> release train by filing blocking JIRAs for
the
> > 2.0.0-incubating
> > > > > > >>>> release. The
> > > > > > >>>> way it currently stands, we seem to only have
1 blocking
> JIRA:
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HAWQ/fixforversion/12334000/?selectedTab=com.atlassian.jira.jira-projects-plugin:version-summary-panel
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>> Thanks,
> > > > > > >>>> Roman.
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

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