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: domain of lhofhansl@yahoo.com
 designates 72.30.239.149 as permitted sender)
Date: Thu, 5 Mar 2015 20:19:34 +0000 (UTC)
From: lars hofhansl <larsh@apache.org>
Reply-To: lars hofhansl <larsh@apache.org>
To: "dev@hbase.apache.org" <dev@hbase.apache.org>,
	lars hofhansl <larsh@apache.org>
Message-ID: <839894702.5286269.1425586774701.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com>
In-Reply-To: <669053656.2484320.1425364008288.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com>
References: <669053656.2484320.1425364008288.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Minor release cadence for branch-1
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
	boundary="----=_Part_5286268_2008659323.1425586774696"

------=_Part_5286268_2008659323.1425586774696
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Any further comments on this?
Seems important to get agreement at least generally.
-- Lars
      From: lars hofhansl <larsh@apache.org>
 To: "dev@hbase.apache.org" <dev@hbase.apache.org>=20
 Sent: Monday, March 2, 2015 10:26 PM
 Subject: Re: Minor release cadence for branch-1
  =20
Hmmm...

I had only expect a monthly patch cadence for minor release (btw, we starte=
d monthly releases with 0.94.x).

In 0.94 and 0.98 we had no clear distinction between patch and minor releas=
es.

For minor releases it seems an on-demand model is more what we want. I.e. w=
e'd have a monthly 1.0.1, 1.0.2, etc. Then at some point we'd release 1.1.0=
... "when it's ready".
Since that's a minor upgrade we can then have a few more 1.0.x releases (li=
ke 0.94 is now) and then tell folks to upgrade to 1.1.x.
(in the end, though, patch releases should continue as long as folks are wi=
lling to contribute patches)

I'd be happy to sign up to do a few minor (1.1, 1.2, or whatever) releases =
- but I do think we should share the love not have the same folks do multip=
le releases simulataneously.

-- Lars


=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 From: Sean Busbey <busbey@cloudera.com>


 To: dev <dev@hbase.apache.org>=20
 Sent: Friday, February 27, 2015 10:06 AM
 Subject: Minor release cadence for branch-1
=C2=A0=20
Hey folks!

Apologies if I've overlooked this getting discussed already. Do we have a
goal release cadence for minor versions out of branch-1?

My first gut reaction is that it should essentially match the cadence we've
been aiming at for the 0.98 line. That would mean attempting to match
monthly, I think?

The obvious problem with this is that now that we have patch versions, it
means essentially getting a new branch per month for backports. That's
quickly going to get old, even if we presume most additions will move onto
branch-2 in a year or so.

What do folks think about limiting which minor versions patch-level fixes
go into? We could default to the most recent release + current minor dev
and go back farther when requested by the issue filer?

That means in ~3 months we'd expect branch-1 to be working on 1.4 and most
patch-level fixes to go into branch-1.3 and branch-1. If someone reported a
failure and they were on e.g. 1.1.z, we'd also do the fix in branch-1.1 and
branch-1.2.

Or should we just stick with hitting all of the branches on the presumption
that the cherry picks should be trivial?

--=20
Sean


=C2=A0=20

  
------=_Part_5286268_2008659323.1425586774696--