hbase-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Rottinghuis, Joep" <jrottingh...@ebay.com>
Subject RE: Branching for 0.92 [WAS -> Re: [DISCUSSION] Accumulo, another BigTable clone, has shown up on Apache Incubator as a proposal]
Date Tue, 20 Sep 2011 04:22:52 GMT
Just filed a jira with patch for this. See HBASE-4447.

Thanks,

Joep

-----Original Message-----
From: saint.ack@gmail.com [mailto:saint.ack@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Stack
Sent: Monday, September 19, 2011 9:21 PM
To: dev@hbase.apache.org
Subject: Re: Branching for 0.92 [WAS -> Re: [DISCUSSION] Accumulo, another BigTable clone,
has shown up on Apache Incubator as a proposal]

On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 8:53 PM, Jesse Yates <jesse.k.yates@gmail.com> wrote:
> You should be able to pretty easily set in in the pom (under 
> properties), and then just use in the <version> tag.
>

Where are the pom properties Jesse?
Thanks,
St.Ack

> That way whenever you want to to bump version numbers, its one easy change.
>
> -Jesse Yates
>
> On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 8:47 PM, Stack <stack@duboce.net> wrote:
>
>> I changed versions.  How would you make hbase.version work?  Looks 
>> like you can't set project.version.  I could change it to 
>> ${hbase.version} but then how to do the default value?
>> St.Ack
>>
>> On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 8:24 PM, Rottinghuis, Joep 
>> <jrottinghuis@ebay.com> wrote:
>> > Trunk should probably go to get a newer version as well (0.93?) Can 
>> > you make the version a property that I can override using
>> -Dhbase.version=0.92-my-own-name?
>> >
>> > Thanks,
>> >
>> > Joep
>> > -----Original Message-----
>> > From: saint.ack@gmail.com [mailto:saint.ack@gmail.com] On Behalf Of
>> Stack
>> > Sent: Monday, September 19, 2011 8:23 PM
>> > To: dev@hbase.apache.org
>> > Subject: Re: Branching for 0.92 [WAS -> Re: [DISCUSSION] Accumulo,
>> another BigTable clone, has shown up on Apache Incubator as a 
>> proposal]
>> >
>> > That makes sense.  Let me make the change.
>> > St.Ack
>> >
>> > On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 8:02 PM, Rottinghuis, Joep <
>> jrottinghuis@ebay.com> wrote:
>> >> Michael,
>> >>
>> >> Should the version in the pom on the 0.92 branch point to
>> 0.92.0-SNAPSHOT?
>> >> If so I can file a bug and supply patch for same.
>> >> Or are you updating that only when you get ready for a release?
>> >>
>> >> Thanks,
>> >>
>> >> Joep
>> >> -----Original Message-----
>> >> From: Rottinghuis, Joep [mailto:jrottinghuis@ebay.com]
>> >> Sent: Monday, September 19, 2011 6:02 PM
>> >> To: dev@hbase.apache.org
>> >> Subject: RE: Branching for 0.92 [WAS -> Re: [DISCUSSION] Accumulo, 
>> >> another BigTable clone, has shown up on Apache Incubator as a 
>> >> proposal]
>> >>
>> >> Thanks St.Ack!
>> >>
>> >> Joep
>> >> -----Original Message-----
>> >> From: saint.ack@gmail.com [mailto:saint.ack@gmail.com] On Behalf 
>> >> Of Stack
>> >> Sent: Sunday, September 18, 2011 12:12 PM
>> >> To: dev@hbase.apache.org
>> >> Subject: Re: Branching for 0.92 [WAS -> Re: [DISCUSSION] Accumulo, 
>> >> another BigTable clone, has shown up on Apache Incubator as a 
>> >> proposal]
>> >>
>> >> I was sort of waiting on a clean build to TRUNK before branching.  
>> >> I
>> think we should be there in next hour or so.  I'll branch this 
>> evening or by tomorrow morning.  That OK w/ you Joep?
>> >>
>> >> St.Ack
>> >>
>> >> On Sat, Sep 17, 2011 at 8:42 PM, Rottinghuis, Joep <
>> jrottinghuis@ebay.com> wrote:
>> >>> Any update on the 0.92 branch getting cut?
>> >>>
>> >>> Cheers,
>> >>>
>> >>> Joep
>> >>> ________________________________________
>> >>> From: saint.ack@gmail.com [saint.ack@gmail.com] On Behalf Of 
>> >>> Stack [stack@duboce.net]
>> >>> Sent: Tuesday, September 06, 2011 8:42 PM
>> >>> To: dev@hbase.apache.org
>> >>> Subject: Branching for 0.92 [WAS -> Re: [DISCUSSION] Accumulo, 
>> >>> another BigTable clone, has shown up on Apache Incubator as a 
>> >>> proposal]
>> >>>
>> >>> I'd like to propose branching friday week, the 16th.  Hopefully 
>> >>> that will might get folks to focus on these last outstanding 
>> >>> issues (of which there are quite a few).
>> >>>
>> >>> Thereafter we need to work on stabilization which I'm sure will 
>> >>> turn up at least one bug, maybe two (smile).  Stabilization will 
>> >>> run for a good while I'd say and will take some effort all 
>> >>> around.  Only bug fixes should go into 0.92 branch (J-D might 
>> >>> have to tie me to the mast).
>> >>>
>> >>> Should we discuss in a separate whether to pull in security?
>> >>>
>> >>> St.Ack
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 6:44 PM, Andrew Purtell 
>> >>> <apurtell@apache.org>
>> wrote:
>> >>>> I also agreed at the time to hold off refactoring the build for

>> >>>> Maven
>> modules and supporting RPC engine variants. I would still have the 
>> same opinion if not for recent events.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> How much work remains for 0.92? If more than a few week's worth,

>> >>>> then
>> a parallel refactor of the build could happen, with a final merge step.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Best regards,
>> >>>>
>> >>>>    - Andy
>> >>>>
>> >>>> On Tue Sep 6th, 2011 12:02 PM PDT Gary Helmling wrote:
>> >>>>
>> >>>>>> Seems like committing it will disrupt the build and src
tree layout.
>> >>>>>> Gary was holding off till we branched but 0.92 branching
is 
>> >>>>>> taking too long.
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> + Lets branch this friday, or next?
>> >>>>>> + And or, run a vote on whether we should commit security
now 
>> >>>>>> + before
>> >>>>>> we branch or after
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>This is getting off topic for the current thread, so I'll open
a 
>> >>>>>new thread to take a vote on converting trunk back in to maven
modules.
>> >>>>>This is what would be necessary to integrate the various 
>> >>>>>security
>> bits.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>The last discussion we had on this was on the dev list at the

>> >>>>>end of May/beginning of June:
>> >>>>>http://search-hadoop.com/m/iXZmd2aZwBE1
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>I agreed as much as anyone that we should hold off until after

>> >>>>>branching
>> >>>>>0.92 in order to avoid the disruption of moving the entire 
>> >>>>>source tree around.  So I have been holding off on this on my

>> >>>>>own discretion and any delay sits mostly with me.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>Of course, that was three months ago and we still haven't branched.
>> >>>>>In hindsight, if we were aware how long the 0.92 process would

>> >>>>>go on, I think the thread might have reached a different conclusion.
>> >>>>>In any case, I think it warrants another discussion.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>--gh
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>
>> >
>>
>

Mime
View raw message