hbase-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Andrew Purtell <apurt...@apache.org>
Subject Re: [NOTICE] Branching for 1.0
Date Tue, 01 Jul 2014 23:36:01 GMT
> 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.

​That's a good idea.

Hopefully this won't happen that often. For this upcoming 0.98 release we
have a significant improvement on deck as a blocker. It probably doesn't
qualify as a bug fix.



On Tue, Jul 1, 2014 at 4:01 PM, Enis Söztutar <enis.soz@gmail.com> wrote:

> I think this situation is applicable times when we have more than one
> active branches (which is pretty likely always). 0.96 depends on the
> patches getting accepted to 0.98+, etc.
>
> I think we can rely on the committers/RMs judgement on whether an issue is
> a bug or not and the implications. Unless a release candidate is about to
> be cut or something, I think it should be ok for committers to commit bug
> fixes to branches w/o an explicit +1 from the RMs. In that case, if a
> blocker is found for 0.98 RC, it should be ok to commit that to all active
> branches given that it is a bug fix. For improvements / risky patches, we
> can wait for the RM.
>
> 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.
> Enis
>
>
> 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