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: <9BE2D384-77EB-4C38-BA59-C623E94AB4B2@gmail.com>
References: <CA+RK=_BGQkZfv_CfMrPtbVLXcnZPC_RD4pgWCEVnrF7QKpR_YA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAHxLZBVfy5JXWbM6kTisJZ9+W6e596YJ2HeGF2a0-tYYd8WRGw@mail.gmail.com> <9BE2D384-77EB-4C38-BA59-C623E94AB4B2@gmail.com>
From: Sean Busbey <busbey@apache.org>
Date: Mon, 9 Jan 2017 12:26:24 -0600
Message-ID: <CAN5cbe7d5NZz0HKOTGddSnSAq2rHnxsVqTEb9QMnQf6RNedwCQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Proposal: Create "branch RM" roles for non releasing branches
 branch-1, branch-2 (when it exists), and master
To: dev <dev@hbase.apache.org>
Cc: "private@hbase.apache.org" <private@hbase.apache.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
archived-at: Mon, 09 Jan 2017 18:26:48 -0000

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?