hbase-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From lars hofhansl <la...@apache.org>
Subject Re: [NOTICE] Branching for 1.0
Date Thu, 03 Jul 2014 16:09:22 GMT
We have to get rid of the 0.99 or the 1.0.0 tag since they designate the same branch.
Since we mostly used 0.99, we should move all jiras targeted to 1.0.0 to 0.99 and delete the
current 1.0.0 version. 0.99 can later be renamed to 1.0.0.
(from painful experience... Don't do that retargeting in bulk, since jira will remove all
other fix versions)


-- Lars



________________________________
 From: Anoop John <anoop.hbase@gmail.com>
To: dev@hbase.apache.org 
Sent: Tuesday, July 1, 2014 5:30 PM
Subject: Re: [NOTICE] Branching for 1.0
 

>Starting today, if a patch goes to 0.98 branch, the Fix Version/s field
should include 0.98, 0.99 and 2.0.0, right ?


Ted asked this..

Same from me

Fix version to be 0.99  or 1.0.0?

-Anoop-




On Wed, Jul 2, 2014 at 5:31 AM, Andrew Purtell <apurtell@apache.org> wrote:

> I think as 0.98 RM if the consensus is no it shouldn't go into 1.0 I'd have
> to cancel the pending 0.98 RC and revert the change. If we take too long to
> reach consensus about 1.0 and the 0.98 RC vote carries, that would force
> inclusion into 1.0. Interesting possibilities. But we do have two separate
> branches and two separate release trains - at least - so we'll have to
> figure it out.
>
>
> On Tue, Jul 1, 2014 at 4:50 PM, Nick Dimiduk <ndimiduk@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Jul 1, 2014 at 4:01 PM, Enis Söztutar <enis.soz@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > > One other thing we can do is that we can commit the patch to 0.98 if
> you
> > > +1, do the RC, but hold on for committing to 1.0. During the RC vote
> > > timeframe, we can then reach a consensus for whether the patch should
> go
> > > into both branches.
> > >
> >
> > It would be a shame to loose track of patches because of this additional
> > administrative step happening asynchronously from initial push of the
> > commit.
> >
> > On Tue, Jul 1, 2014 at 3:34 PM, Andrew Purtell <apurtell@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > > I agree just about everything related to HBASE-10856 is something
> that
> > > > merits discussion and consensus.
> > > >
> > > > > My main goal for branch-1 is to limit the exposure for unrelated
> > > changes
> > > > in the branch for a more stable release
> > > >
> > > > This is a goal shared by 0.98 so that's no issue at all.
> > > >
> > > > What we should sort out is coordinating RTC on multiple active
> > branches.
> > > > For example, it's not possible for me to commit to rolling a 0.98 RC
> > on a
> > > > particular day if we have a blocker that needs to go through 1.0
> first,
> > > > since it is not clear for any given commit when or if it will be
> acked
> > > for
> > > > 1.0.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, Jul 1, 2014 at 3:29 PM, Enis Söztutar <enis@apache.org>
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Agreed that for every feature including security, we should be
> > careful
> > > to
> > > > > not create a gap in terms of support (release x supporting, release
> > x+1
> > > > not
> > > > > supporting, release x+2 supporting etc).
> > > > >
> > > > > My main goal for branch-1 is to limit the exposure for unrelated
> > > changes
> > > > in
> > > > > the branch for a more stable release. If we think that we need to
> > > > > fix/improve some things for 1.0 and 0.98.x, it will be ok to
> commit.
> > > Some
> > > > > of the items linked under
> > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-10856
> > > > > imply big changes, but it would be ok to commit those to have a
> clear
> > > > > story.
> > > > >
> > > > > I think we can decide on a per-issue/feature basis.
> > > > > Enis
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Tue, Jul 1, 2014 at 3:16 PM, Andrew Purtell <
> apurtell@apache.org>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Now that I think about it more, actually every commit, since
I
> > don't
> > > > > think
> > > > > > we want a situation where something goes into master and 0.98,
> but
> > > not
> > > > > 1.0.
> > > > > > We should discuss how to handle this.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Tue, Jul 1, 2014 at 3:10 PM, Andrew Purtell <
> > apurtell@apache.org>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > I'm curious what will be the policy for security commits?
I
> plan
> > to
> > > > > take
> > > > > > > all security changes into 0.98. If we have commits to master
> and
> > > 0.98
> > > > > > that
> > > > > > > will result in a serious feature / functionality discontinuity.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 8:56 PM, Enis Söztutar <
> > enis.soz@gmail.com
> > > >
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> I've pushed the branch, named branch-1:
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=hbase.git;a=shortlog;h=refs/heads/branch-1
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> Please do not commit new features to branch-1 without
pinging
> > the
> > > RM
> > > > > > (for
> > > > > > >> 1.0 it is me). Bug fixes, and trivial commits can always
go
> in.
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> That branch still has 0.99.0-SNAPSHOT as the version
number,
> > since
> > > > > next
> > > > > > >> expected release from that is 0.99.0. Jenkins build
for this
> > > branch
> > > > is
> > > > > > >> setup at https://builds.apache.org/view/All/job/HBase-1.0/.
> It
> > > > builds
> > > > > > >> with
> > > > > > >> latest jdk7. I'll try to stabilize the unit tests for
the
> first
> > > RC.
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> I've changed the master version as well. It now builds
with
> > > > > > >> 2.0.0-SNAPSHOT.
> > > > > > >> Exciting!
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> Enis
> > > > > > >>
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Best regards,
> > > >
> > > >    - Andy
> > > >
> > > > Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet
> > Hein
> > > > (via Tom White)
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Best regards,
>
>    - Andy
>
> Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet Hein
> (via Tom White)
>
Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message