hbase-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ted Yu <yuzhih...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: HBase 0.92 branch
Date Thu, 28 Jul 2011 17:16:01 GMT
>> if we held to my way of doing things we might never branch.
That was the motivation for my poll. Without fixing all issues on
http://s.apache.org/x4, there would still be a 0.92 build for people to try
out.

>> I'd say 3+1s if its a 'big' change.  The small stuff should just let go
through.
I agree.

On Thu, Jul 28, 2011 at 10:04 AM, Stack <stack@duboce.net> wrote:

> On Thu, Jul 28, 2011 at 9:47 AM, Ted Yu <yuzhihong@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Since build 2047, TRUNK build has been on a steady decline. I believe
> even
> > if this trend is reversed, it is hard to guarantee that TRUNK build would
> be
> > healthy in the future.
>
> I think we can fix it.
>
> > Now that the issues on http://s.apache.org/x4 have come down to 18, I
> think
> > we should consider branching 0.92 soon (maybe after HFile v2 and
> HBASE-4027
> > go in and we fix the broken build).
>
> I suppose I'd like the issues to go to zero before we branched but I
> can go along w/ the above; if we held to my way of doing things we
> might never branch.
>
>
> > After branching, we can focus on the following:
> > 1. every checkin to 0.92 branch shouldn't break its build. This requires
> the
> > committer to perform at least one complete test suite run before checking
> > in.
>
> I'll set up a build of the branch soon as we branch.  I've been
> responsible for build breakage of late.  Will reform myself.
>
> > 2. patches for issues on http://s.apache.org/x4 are allowed to go into
> 0.92
> > branch. New issues outside the list have to collect 3 +1 from committers
> > before going in.
> >
>
> I'd say 3+1s if its a 'big' change.  The small stuff should just let go
> through.
>
> Good stuff,
> St.Ack
>

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