Mailing-List: contact dev-help@hbase.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@hbase.apache.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <684119050.19307.1432355657961.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com>
References: 
 <CANZa=GvE30eTee3xO6fGqfa717bF4z0uk6vAHiGy05fvCkVhzQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <684119050.19307.1432355657961.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com>
From: Nick Dimiduk <ndimiduk@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 27 May 2015 13:47:23 -0700
Message-ID: 
 <CANZa=Gt+Gou9gevQyfRqwgpX0JKVU9517jkgQS6t8Mg=athZEg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Git branch-1.1.0?
To: hbase-dev <dev@hbase.apache.org>, lars hofhansl <larsh@apache.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c2382cd0a3ea0517165a94

--001a11c2382cd0a3ea0517165a94
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

Thanks, makes a lot of sense. I've deleted branch-1.1.0 from the
repository, hopefully this will reduce confusion. The tags remain.

-n

On Fri, May 22, 2015 at 9:34 PM, lars hofhansl <larsh@apache.org> wrote:

> Same here.
> Actually for 0.94, I simply spun RCs as tags off the 0.94 branch - hence
> each RC had whatever is the latest on the branch when I create the
> tag.Easier to keep track of things, and to make sure jira and git are in
> sync.
> Just personal preference of course.
> I just had to figure out whether I need to cherry-pick a change into
> branch-1.1.0 as well; the answer appears to be "no".
> Thanks.
> -- Lars
>       From: Nick Dimiduk <ndimiduk@apache.org>
>  To: hbase-dev <dev@hbase.apache.org>
>  Sent: Friday, May 22, 2015 11:33 AM
>  Subject: Re: Git branch-1.1.0?
>
> On Fri, May 22, 2015 at 11:28 AM, Andrew Purtell <apurtell@apache.org>
> wrote:
>
> > FWIW, I make local branches for RCs but only push up tags I make from
> > commits on the local branch, not a ref for the branch.
> >
>
> Oh, interesting. Would that have been the more correct action for me to
> have taken with the RC approach I used? If I delete branch-1.1.0, the tags
> would remain? I don't think deleting the branch is helpful. Sorry about the
> confusion though, I should have sent a note to dev explaining myself when I
> took the action.
>
>
>
> -n
>
> On Fri, May 22, 2015 at 11:26 AM, Andrew Purtell <apurtell@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Pardon, that was an unfortunate typo. I meant branch-1.1.0.
> > >
> > >
> > > On Fri, May 22, 2015 at 11:06 AM, Nick Dimiduk <ndimiduk@apache.org>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > >> Don't delete branch-1.1. Let me explain.
> > >>
> > >> branch-1.1.0 was my use in creating rc1+. I created it from the
> 1.1.0rc0
> > >> tag and spun subsequent RC's as commits on that branch. The idea was
> to
> > >> de-risk further RC's by not bringing in changes that were unrelated to
> > >> reviewers' criticisms raised on the VOTE thread. Any fixes were first
> > >> committed to branch-1.1 and then applied to branch-1.1.0 (rc1 was sunk
> > >> because I had brought back a patch from master instead of branch-1.1).
> > Now
> > >> that 1.1.0 is released, branch-1.1.0 is effectively dead -- except for
> > hot
> > >> fix releases; I didn't check but I would expected 1.1.0.1 to have been
> > cut
> > >> from branch-1.1.0. Further branch-1.1.x patch release will be cut from
> > >> branch-1.1 as "normal". I may or may not create similar branches for
> > >> further release candidates on the 1.1 line, depending on how RC
> > candidate
> > >> stabilization goes.
> > >>
> > >> When we're ready for 1.2, it will be branched from branch-1, creating
> > >> branch-1.2.
> > >>
> > >> On Fri, May 22, 2015 at 9:30 AM, Andrew Purtell <
> > andrew.purtell@gmail.com
> > >> >
> > >> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> > So what should we do with branch-1.1? Delete it?
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> > On Fri, May 22, 2015 at 5:09 AM, Ted Yu <yuzhihong@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> > > Thanks for the correction, Andrew.
> > >> > >
> > >> > > On Thu, May 21, 2015 at 10:43 PM, Andrew Purtell <
> > >> > andrew.purtell@gmail.com
> > >> > > > wrote:
> > >> > >
> > >> > >> I think there is some confusion here because I'd expect to make a
> > 1.2
> > >> > >> release branch from branch-1, eventually. Branch-1 is even
> > helpfully
> > >> > >> versioned 1.2.0-SNAPSHOT. We have enough branches already
> (smile).
> > >> > >>
> > >> > >>
> > >> > >> > On May 21, 2015, at 10:26 PM, lars hofhansl <larsh@apache.org>
> > >> wrote:
> > >> > >> >
> > >> > >> > Huh? We should create a 1.2 branch of branch-1. We do not need
> to
> > >> have
> > >> > >> a branch for every patch release.There's clearly something I am
> > >> missing.
> > >> > >> > -- Lars
> > >> > >> >      From: Ted Yu <yuzhihong@gmail.com>
> > >> > >> > To: "dev@hbase.apache.org" <dev@hbase.apache.org>; lars
> > hofhansl <
> > >> > >> larsh@apache.org>
> > >> > >> > Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2015 10:13 PM
> > >> > >> > Subject: Re: Git branch-1.1.0?
> > >> > >> >
> > >> > >> > branch-1.1 corresponds to the (upcoming) 1.2.0 release.
> > >> > >> >
> > >> > >> > branch-1.1.0 was for the just released 1.1.0
> > >> > >> >
> > >> > >> > Cheers
> > >> > >> >
> > >> > >> >
> > >> > >> >
> > >> > >> >> On Thu, May 21, 2015 at 10:00 PM, lars hofhansl <
> > larsh@apache.org
> > >> >
> > >> > >> wrote:
> > >> > >> >>
> > >> > >> >> Just saw we have a branch-1.1.0 branch in git. What do we use
> > that
> > >> > one
> > >> > >> >> for? 1.1.x releases should be tags on branch-1.1, no?
> > >> > >> >> Thanks.
> > >> > >> >> -- Lars
> > >> > >> >
> > >> > >> >
> > >> > >>
> > >> > >
> > >> > >
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > 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)
> >
>
>
>
>

--001a11c2382cd0a3ea0517165a94--