Mailing-List: contact dev-help@hbase.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@hbase.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of jdcryans@gmail.com designates
 209.85.213.169 as permitted sender)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
        h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date
         :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type
         :content-transfer-encoding;
        b=wmxw0RJYwFPTym0yJPomfeTc8tVMPvHkZz1ZqCZMTnI1yKgPtzPecrPrWyWgFgNdXD
         Y4Cbas06QO0iSYaoDHMn4eLeP8v6emcQXt9srSun7P5HnAngV2MTlG3hBj3PFVdzSGZW
         py0JlpQQ4fr4LwXxcJXmT94EcD2wMv0aeBM34=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: jdcryans@gmail.com
In-Reply-To: <BANLkTi=uCKUrwOb08gHCN=PAivjwxth_tg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <BANLkTint9M=K6xhYt9vU6+Q9t8ugKjgUXg@mail.gmail.com>
	<BANLkTinK27Tmr1Pj98xBGaqSvKC0t=cOOg@mail.gmail.com>
	<BANLkTimm+bMfW6afCv3iXV_5UPM2wELeqg@mail.gmail.com>
	<BANLkTi=+C-fc+Z1yZOtKUPd=aQvDvpnafg@mail.gmail.com>
	<BANLkTi=G0sy9GjS+6RT_6KKAvVuRQXG2Eg@mail.gmail.com>
	<BANLkTi=pv0xs2=30sudEKSJQUGGfJOHVeg@mail.gmail.com>
	<BANLkTikz=zsUaY75GDq-dOoUWEyATStHHA@mail.gmail.com>
	<BANLkTin0bmSjAB_yZBeubZ9HOEw_TLSi3w@mail.gmail.com>
	<BANLkTikrqWtPeZ495Z24+tetVR8FUamBiQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<BANLkTi=Xvx+8H6eBMEJGbREg3GpY8Hr44A@mail.gmail.com>
	<BANLkTikeYTYoRrr2Rq+_gk_fJg1s_MA5ag@mail.gmail.com>
	<BANLkTimEcJ81eO0d_pMH9b6NwE8mV8+4CQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<BANLkTikpfW-3f6ZuTnTXV5wf=Ky29U8Q3A@mail.gmail.com>
	<BANLkTikp6frYptoGHRM8fAHyJV8KhDXyMw@mail.gmail.com>
	<BANLkTinrTaV4Sn1NtyHm2y7OV-GQ3ZBvGA@mail.gmail.com>
	<BANLkTi=uCKUrwOb08gHCN=PAivjwxth_tg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 16 May 2011 11:31:03 -0700
Message-ID: <BANLkTimQiDRvVHE8F_+03MCQ_2aHPvamWA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Release 0.90.3 soon?
From: Jean-Daniel Cryans <jdcryans@apache.org>
To: dev@hbase.apache.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Run the unit tests, try it on a handful of machines, basically just
make sure it's usable.

J-D

On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 11:26 AM, Ted Yu <yuzhihong@gmail.com> wrote:
> I assume release manager has to be a committer. So, although I want to he=
lp
> ...
>
> On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 11:00 AM, Stack <stack@duboce.net> wrote:
>
>> We cut cut a 0.91 now as Todd suggests but would need a release
>> manager to run the release.
>> St.Ack
>>
>> On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 9:26 AM, Ted Yu <yuzhihong@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > Barney Frank's request for help brought me back to this discussion.
>> > When would 0.91 release come ?
>> >
>> > On Wed, May 4, 2011 at 10:31 AM, Ted Yu <yuzhihong@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> I am looking forward to this 0.91 release.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On Wed, May 4, 2011 at 10:23 AM, Todd Lipcon <todd@cloudera.com> wrot=
e:
>> >>
>> >>> On Wed, May 4, 2011 at 8:57 AM, Ted Yu <yuzhihong@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> > When would 0.91 branch be created ?
>> >>> > We should reduce the number of open critical bugs for 0.90 - each
>> such
>> >>> > issue
>> >>> > would soon be integrated to 3 branches after 0.91 branch is create=
d.
>> >>> >
>> >>>
>> >>> Sorry, I should have been clear that I would imagine 0.91 would be a
>> "dev
>> >>> release" series like 0.89. That is to say, there would be no 0.91
>> branch,
>> >>> just a few "snapshot style" releases with minimal pre-release testin=
g
>> to
>> >>> get
>> >>> us in shape for 92. These releases would never have point releases d=
one
>> on
>> >>> top (and thus not need to have changes backported to them one
>> released).
>> >>>
>> >>> Consider it another name for an extended release candidate period fo=
r
>> >>> 0.92.
>> >>>
>> >>> -Todd
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> > On Tue, May 3, 2011 at 10:47 PM, Todd Lipcon <todd@cloudera.com>
>> wrote:
>> >>> >
>> >>> > > Maybe we should do an 0.91 dev release tout de suite? Folks who
>> want
>> >>> > > 3777 and coprocessors and the other nice stuff can then help us
>> bake
>> >>> > > towards 92 ?
>> >>> > >
>> >>> > > Todd
>> >>> > >
>> >>> > > On Tuesday, May 3, 2011, Stack <stack@duboce.net> wrote:
>> >>> > > > On Tue, May 3, 2011 at 9:21 PM, Ted Yu <yuzhihong@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> >>> > > >> After discussion below, I wonder if 0.92.0RC would come out
>> before
>> >>> > > 0.90.4
>> >>> > > >> I hope that's the case - we're looking forward to coprocessor
>> which
>> >>> > > wouldn't
>> >>> > > >> be in 0.90.x anyway.
>> >>> > > >>
>> >>> > > >
>> >>> > > > Plan is to put up a 0.92.0 'soon', in the next week or so. =A0=
I'm
>> not
>> >>> > > > sure when 0.90.4 will see light of day. =A0There's a good few
>> blockers
>> >>> > > > and criticals but if a few of us have a go at them, we'll knoc=
k
>> it
>> >>> out
>> >>> > > > tout de suite (This is what I'm working on at mo).
>> >>> > > >
>> >>> > > > Good stuff,
>> >>> > > > St.Ack
>> >>> > > >
>> >>> > >
>> >>> > > --
>> >>> > > Todd Lipcon
>> >>> > > Software Engineer, Cloudera
>> >>> > >
>> >>> >
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> --
>> >>> Todd Lipcon
>> >>> Software Engineer, Cloudera
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>>
>