Mailing-List: contact dev-help@hbase.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@hbase.apache.org
Received-SPF: neutral (nike.apache.org: local policy)
References: 
 <CALte62yVAO2UQn2hr=OGO+NN2cLAm23tKhiHxKr6xzEg_t7GBA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CADcMMgHoHv_q4iRVK7_fpeRJfp6B_QYzhLoCCm-NfVQ=kjp0_g@mail.gmail.com>
 <1311876611.96664.YahooMailNeo@web65514.mail.ac4.yahoo.com>
 <CALte62wq8rNN1aS2pmRcQ8OD6BRQiFZ5MiqHWz+bLndnbpS++Q@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <1311898694.75374.YahooMailNeo@web65513.mail.ac4.yahoo.com>
Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2011 17:18:14 -0700 (PDT)
From: Andrew Purtell <apurtell@apache.org>
Reply-To: Andrew Purtell <apurtell@apache.org>
Subject: Re: HBase 0.92 branch
To: "dev@hbase.apache.org" <dev@hbase.apache.org>
In-Reply-To: 
 <CALte62wq8rNN1aS2pmRcQ8OD6BRQiFZ5MiqHWz+bLndnbpS++Q@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0-2035953993-1311898694=:75374"

--0-2035953993-1311898694=:75374
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

I was talking about feature branches. So, no, I do not support making a fea=
ture branch at this time. What feature would that be?=0A=0ARelease branches=
 and trunk should maintain the same convention we have right now: RTC with =
one +1 from a committer not the originator of the patch, or CTR for changes=
 marked as trivial.=0A=0A=A0=0ABest regards,=0A=0A=0A- Andy=0A=0A=0AProblem=
s worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet Hein (via Tom =
White)=0A=0A=0A>________________________________=0A>From: Ted Yu <yuzhihong=
@gmail.com>=0A>To: dev@hbase.apache.org; Andrew Purtell <apurtell@apache.or=
g>=0A>Sent: Thursday, July 28, 2011 5:13 PM=0A>Subject: Re: HBase 0.92 bran=
ch=0A>=0A>>> Our practice is RTC with one +1 other than patch creator being=
 sufficient=0A>for commit, and CTR for trivial changes. I'm -1 on changing =
this.=0A>Fair.=0A>=0A>Shall we branch when we have a successful TRUNK build=
 after the three=0A>blockers on http://s.apache.org/x4, HFile V2 and HBASE-=
4027 get checked in ?=0A>=0A>Thanks=0A>=0A>On Thu, Jul 28, 2011 at 11:10 AM=
, Andrew Purtell <apurtell@apache.org>wrote:=0A>=0A>> > New issues outside =
the list have to collect 3 +1 from committers before=0A>> going in.=0A>>=0A=
>> -1=0A>>=0A>> Do we actually have bylaws?=0A>>=0A>> Our practice is RTC w=
ith one +1 other than patch creator being sufficient=0A>> for commit, and C=
TR for trivial changes. I'm -1 on changing this.=0A>>=0A>> Hadoop core rece=
ntly ran a vote to increase the threshold for RTC to three=0A>> +1s for com=
mits that represent a branch merge. I support this for HBase. So=0A>> if pe=
ople think some big "new issue" needs additional review, then we make a=0A>=
> feature branch for it and require three +1s for merge commit.=0A>>=0A>> B=
est regards,=0A>>=0A>>=0A>>=A0 =A0 - Andy=0A>>=0A>> Problems worthy of atta=
ck prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet Hein=0A>> (via Tom White)=0A>>=
=0A>>=0A>> >________________________________=0A>> >From: Stack <stack@duboc=
e.net>=0A>> >To: dev@hbase.apache.org=0A>> >Sent: Thursday, July 28, 2011 1=
0:04 AM=0A>> >Subject: Re: HBase 0.92 branch=0A>> >=0A>> >On Thu, Jul 28, 2=
011 at 9:47 AM, Ted Yu <yuzhihong@gmail.com> wrote:=0A>> >> Since build 204=
7, TRUNK build has been on a steady decline. I believe=0A>> even=0A>> >> if=
 this trend is reversed, it is hard to guarantee that TRUNK build=0A>> woul=
d be=0A>> >> healthy in the future.=0A>> >=0A>> >I think we can fix it.=0A>=
> >=0A>> >> Now that the issues on http://s.apache.org/x4 have come down to=
 18, I=0A>> think=0A>> >> we should consider branching 0.92 soon (maybe aft=
er HFile v2 and=0A>> HBASE-4027=0A>> >> go in and we fix the broken build).=
=0A>> >=0A>> >I suppose I'd like the issues to go to zero before we branche=
d but I=0A>> >can go along w/ the above; if we held to my way of doing thin=
gs we=0A>> >might never branch.=0A>> >=0A>> >=0A>> >> After branching, we c=
an focus on the following:=0A>> >> 1. every checkin to 0.92 branch shouldn'=
t break its build. This requires=0A>> the=0A>> >> committer to perform at l=
east one complete test suite run before=0A>> checking=0A>> >> in.=0A>> >=0A=
>> >I'll set up a build of the branch soon as we branch.=A0 I've been=0A>> =
>responsible for build breakage of late.=A0 Will reform myself.=0A>> >=0A>>=
 >> 2. patches for issues on http://s.apache.org/x4 are allowed to go into=
=0A>> 0.92=0A>> >> branch. New issues outside the list have to collect 3 +1=
 from committers=0A>> >> before going in.=0A>> >>=0A>> >=0A>> >I'd say 3+1s=
 if its a 'big' change.=A0 The small stuff should just let go=0A>> through.=
=0A>> >=0A>> >Good stuff,=0A>> >St.Ack=0A>> >=0A>> >=0A>> >=0A>>=0A>=0A>=0A=
>
--0-2035953993-1311898694=:75374--