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: local policy)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws;
  s=s1024; d=yahoo.com;
  h=X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-Mailer:References:Message-ID:Date:From:Reply-To:Subject:To:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type;
  b=GXk1ZR50ZLu88nj8ZwKVKb3UsGS8mmGsZPDhbIrs6zkS+OcViqqTEFr2CQFs9rGBDjTMPGWmw/dmSD36tUunKF9C5EKm5qsLOwfQEbzo3+ZYRDEOtbswY9qkQdue1iymblr+Af2cvIoTuZ8ijoWARqEczN3np8MdiU+d43GNdNY=;
References: <1318396950.84255.YahooMailNeo@web121715.mail.ne1.yahoo.com>
 <CAB5sDN+rF1TpjcD3w--eiYFncEYjyH86w35jRRfzVQ3gFMpzsA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CADcMMgEZz+SEg6pT9_R1GtsDkq3pgJfHRaeo7LTp-z84KxvqXQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAGWW7Lk+-rtiYoCV4Eg7Y-Pib+Y_nnFv8MT6jsF94QNDDcfoWQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <1318452537.97868.YahooMailNeo@web121705.mail.ne1.yahoo.com>
Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2011 13:48:57 -0700 (PDT)
From: lars hofhansl <lhofhansl@yahoo.com>
Reply-To: lars hofhansl <lhofhansl@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: HBase releases...
To: "dev@hbase.apache.org" <dev@hbase.apache.org>
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAGWW7Lk+-rtiYoCV4Eg7Y-Pib+Y_nnFv8MT6jsF94QNDDcfoWQ@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii

Debian moves at glacial speeds, though :)


At the speed that HBase is still going, porting to stable even after a few weeks,
might be a monumental task.
On the other hand it would make for stable releases.


----- Original Message -----
From: Li Pi <li@idle.li>
To: dev@hbase.apache.org
Cc: 
Sent: Wednesday, October 12, 2011 12:17 PM
Subject: Re: HBase releases...

We could do a Debian style release system with stable and feature branches.
Once the feature branches get stabilized - they can be ported to stable.
On Oct 12, 2011 10:56 AM, "Stack" <stack@duboce.net> wrote:

> On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 10:42 PM, Jesse Yates <jesse.k.yates@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > If we can release more frequently, with truly stable releases, then more
> > people will be more likely to run clusters with codebases that are closer
> to
> > trunk. Therefore they will have more benefits like bug fixes and
> performance
> > increases without the worry that they are running unstable/buggy code.
> > However, there is a big 'if' here - if we can make sure that the builds
> that
> > go out frequently are really rock solid.
> >
>
> We can't afford to go backwards when it comes to perceived stability.
> Its a separate discussion -- belongs more in the testing thread that
> has been running of late -- but I'd like to talk about how we can
> ensure stability goes up as time goes by even as we cross major
> release versions.
>
> St.Ack
>