hbase-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From lars hofhansl <la...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Marking fix version
Date Thu, 04 Apr 2013 17:33:03 GMT
Yes, I think we should remove the 0.96 tag. Stack said the other day that he should have just
renamed 0.96 to 0.95 rather than moving all the issues.

The rest is already what I have been doing for issues I am committing (so +1 :) ), but I did
notice that not all issues are tagged correctly.

-- Lars

 From: Jonathan Hsieh <jon@cloudera.com>
To: dev@hbase.apache.org; lars hofhansl <larsh@apache.org> 
Sent: Thursday, April 4, 2013 10:15 AM
Subject: Re: Marking fix version

The argument for excluding the 0.96 tag makes sense.  Can we agree to do this:

Commit only to trunk: Mark with 0.98
Commit to 0.95 and trunk : Mark with 0.98, and 0.95.x
Commit to 0.94.x and 0.95, and trunk: Mark with 0.98, 0.95.x, and 0.94.x

Commit to 89-fb: Mark with 89-fb.
Commit site fixes: no version

Should we remove 0.96 tag for now until the branch appears again?


On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 10:10 AM, lars hofhansl <larsh@apache.org> wrote:

Thank Jon,
>I do not think we have to include anticipated future branches in the tags.
>The release notes are not accumulative but list changes made for each release.
>So if something is in 0.95.x a 0.96 tag neither needed nor wanted (IMHO) until we actually
have a *parallel* 0.96 branch.
>That is why all 0.95+trunk changes *have* to be tagged with 0.98 as well, because at this
point the two branches are in parallel. Actually we should go through and make that so in
>That means the 0.96 tag is not needed right now (and in fact will make just confusing,
because at the time we do release 0.96 we'll see the same issue in the release notes twice)
>-- Lars
> From: Jonathan Hsieh <jon@cloudera.com>
>To: dev@hbase.apache.org
>Sent: Thursday, April 4, 2013 8:40 AM
>Subject: Marking fix version
>Hey all,
>I just wanted to make sure we are on the same page here when we committing
>code and that we are consistent when marking fix version in the jira.  Its
>pretty important that we get this right because our release notes are
>generated from these as of 0.94.
>Here's what I'm doing and suggesting
>Commit only to trunk: Mark with 0.98
>Commit to 0.95 and trunk : Mark with 0.98, 0.96, and 0.95.x
>Commit to 0.94.x and 0.95, and trunk: Mark with 0.98, 0.96, 0.95.x, and
>Commit to 89-fb: Mark with 89-fb.
>Commit site fixes: no version
>My understanding is that 0.96 will be a branch off of 0.95 -- so any fix to
>0.95 is a fix to 0.96 until 0.96 branches.
>// Jonathan Hsieh (shay)
>// Software Engineer, Cloudera
>// jon@cloudera.com

// Jonathan Hsieh (shay)
// Software Engineer, Cloudera

// jon@cloudera.com
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message