Mailing-List: contact dev-help@hbase.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@hbase.apache.org
From: Andrew Purtell <andrew.purtell@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
Subject: Re: Branch for 1.3
Message-Id: <439D4C7F-431F-48BD-BA1C-2EB9C18C1A7E@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Feb 2016 19:57:16 -0800
References: 
 <CALvzVW3J=aFvC9zzezHxwXb-OaB3Y4CwxD=uz3qvURbTfMqBMw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CADcMMgFjiU2dPKN8aBT0cv+2G0KhhUVtHSfdYVN-6WNANMAP+w@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: 
 <CADcMMgFjiU2dPKN8aBT0cv+2G0KhhUVtHSfdYVN-6WNANMAP+w@mail.gmail.com>
To: dev@hbase.apache.org

No, each 0.94.x/0.96.x/98.x was or is a minor release. :-) Sometimes the cha=
nges in those releases could all be considered "point" in scope or effect bu=
t not always. Further supporting this point of view, when we went from 0.94 t=
o 0.96 it was a major increment, in effect, due to 'the singularity'.

Doing a new minor every month would be more like a return to past state of a=
ffairs, for better or worse, in my humble opinion.=20

> On Feb 24, 2016, at 7:46 PM, Stack <stack@duboce.net> wrote:
>=20
>> On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 11:50 AM, Elliott Clark <eclark@apache.org> wrote=
:
>>=20
>> Is it time to branch for 1.3 ?
>=20
>=20
>> Sean did a great job getting 1.2 out. However it was a hard difficult
>> process that I wouldn't wish on anyone. Is it time to branch for 1.3 and
>> start the process of stabilizing again so that we can get a monthly caden=
ce
>> for minor releases going?
>=20
>=20
> Monthly cadence for minors is upping the ante. We used to be about
> monthly's for point releases.
>=20
> +1 for the mighty Mikhail as RM. Sean, please UPS him the special robe tha=
t
> he has to wear while performing his RMness duties.
>=20
> St.Ack