hbase-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Andrew Purtell <apurt...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Proposal: Create "branch RM" roles for non releasing branches branch-1, branch-2 (when it exists), and master
Date Mon, 09 Jan 2017 20:43:02 GMT
Good, I think we are on the same page regards a long term maintainer for
branch-1. I can make a multi year commitment like I did with 0.98. How that
works with respect to branching for minor releases we can figure out. My
thought is anytime someone wants to branch off to make a minor release, RM
it, and run with it, that's great, and the more on the project who do that
the better off we will be with the releasing work well spread around. At
the same time people won't have infinite time to maintain minor branches
and generate patch releases, so when the maintainer of a minor branch feels
like moving on, whenever that is, this is perfectly fine. This is basically
the current situation, except maybe minor branch RMs are feeling they have
themselves taken on a long term commitment (this can change, up to the
individual, as it has always been), and there is no maintainer on the
upstream branch (this will change).


On Mon, Jan 9, 2017 at 10:35 AM, Mikhail Antonov <olorinbant@gmail.com>
wrote:

> I should say I was talking more about "should these things be discussed
> together or separately", not any particular direction we should
> or should not take, as I didn't want to accidentally steal the topic.
>
> But speaking specifically on that.. saying that we're going to maintain
> branch-1 lines until at least Feb 2018 definitely makes total sense to me.
> 2 years overlap with 2.0 might be something we'd want to discuss in some
> more depth.
>
> -Mikhail
>
> On Mon, Jan 9, 2017 at 10:26 AM, Sean Busbey <busbey@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Jan 6, 2017 at 7:43 PM, Mikhail Antonov <olorinbant@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > ...
> > >
> > > Speaking specifically about branch-1 and given 2.0 release
> > > discussions, is it proper time/thread to also discuss what
> > > do we want to do with branch-1? Like, say that 1.4 would be
> > > the last release off this line and hence branch-1 should be
> > > turned to 1.4, and should we wind down backports to it?
> >
> > On Fri, Jan 6, 2017 at 8:07 PM, Andrew Purtell <andrew.purtell@gmail.com
> >
> > wrote:
> > > I would like to see branch-1 be our new long term stable branch and so
> > to be maintained for roughly as long as 0.98 was: three years from first
> > release (1.0.0).
> > >
> > > ...
> >
> > I would definitely not be comfortable retiring branch-1 any time this
> > CY, given the unknown state of both the 2.0 release process and how
> > long that branch has been without a release. Three years from 1.0.0
> > puts us at February 2018. The 0.98 branch had the benefit of nearly 2
> > years overlap with branch-1 releases; should branch-1 have a similar
> > window with branch-2?
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Thanks,
> Michael Antonov
>



-- 
Best regards,

   - Andy

If you are given a choice, you believe you have acted freely. - Raymond
Teller (via Peter Watts)

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message