hawq-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Radar Da lei <r...@pivotal.io>
Subject Re: [VOTE] HAWQ 2.0.0-incubating Release
Date Sat, 09 Jul 2016 04:02:53 GMT
Thanks Goden.

Later we should have HAWQ-892 commit in this new branch. And I think at
least HAWQ-901 should be merged in once it's get committed to master.

Regards,
Radar

On Sat, Jul 9, 2016 at 1:32 AM, Ting(Goden) Yao <tyao@pivotal.io> wrote:

> As I didn't see any response on the thread, I have done creating a new
> branch "*2.0.0.0-incubating*" based on the latest commit on master :
>
> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=incubator-hawq.git;a=commit;h=3b54677d9d06d49e40e161daedfe7efa2229fc07
>
>
> I also have deleted the old "2.0.0-incubating" branch.
> Please start working on our 1st release in this new branch.
> Thanks
> -Goden
>
> On Thu, Jul 7, 2016 at 3:19 PM Ting(Goden) Yao <tyao@pivotal.io> wrote:
>
> > To echo with Roman's ask - I assume we plan to cut 2.0.0.0-incubating
> > branch based on the current head of Master:
> >
> > The last known commit when we were discussing on this thread was: by rlei
> >
> >
> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=incubator-hawq.git;a=commit;h=0f61e8597586d9e4f3902b14dc0ad2debae606a7
> >
> >
> > today (July 7), shivram had another commit to fix a unit test issue:
> >
> >
> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=incubator-hawq.git;a=commit;h=e150dc4e346bf471687e32c32f37c66896d302ec
> >
> >
> > so if we want to cut the branch please do it fast as master is always
> > moving with latest commits.
> >
> > If I don't see any updates on the thread of creating the release branch
> by
> > July 8th morning 10am (PST), as release manager, I'll go ahead to create
> > the branch based on the latest commit then.
> >
> > Let me know if there's any concerns for that.
> >
> > Thanks
> > -Goden
> >
> > On Thu, Jul 7, 2016 at 11:25 AM Roman Shaposhnik <roman@shaposhnik.org>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Thanks Goden!
> >>
> >> To close the loop on the other thread that has to do with dependencies
> >> management,
> >> I'd like to ask that whoever cuts the branch notifies the list
> >> immediately so I don't
> >> have to wait for the tarball to be put up for vote in order to provide
> >> feedback on
> >> the build.
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >> Roman.
> >>
> >> On Thu, Jul 7, 2016 at 10:51 AM, Ting(Goden) Yao <tyao@pivotal.io>
> wrote:
> >> > I'm fine with this one-time approach. Please moving forward creating a
> >> new
> >> > branch and deal with the version issue , then I'll check and respin
> the
> >> > voting process.
> >> > I've also updated JIRA release version for this one to
> >> "*2.0.0.0-incubating*"
> >> > to be consistent as well as wiki page.
> >> >
> >> > On Thu, Jul 7, 2016 at 12:47 AM Lei Chang <lei_chang@apache.org>
> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> 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