The current list of candidate commits for the release is here: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1UJSXLrfUNZwUnx_JzkwAcXSxmcbG7meBDad6ZTxlSmw
On Mon, Oct 31, 2016 at 8:53 AM, Subbu Srinivasan <[email protected]> wrote: > +1. > > On Sun, Oct 30, 2016 at 10:23 PM, Paul Rogers <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > For release numbers, 1.10 (then 1.11, 1.12, …) seems like a good idea. > > > > At first it may seem odd to go to 1.10 from 1.9. Might people get > confused > > between 1.10 and 1.1.0? But, there is precedence. Tomcat’s latest > 7-series > > release is 7.0.72. Java is on 8u112. And so on. > > > > I like the idea of moving to 2.0 later when the team introduces a major > > change, rather than by default just because the numbers roll around. For > > example, Hadoop when to 2.x when YARN was introduced. Impala appears to > > have moved to 2.0 when they added Spill to disk for some (all?) > operators. > > > > - Paul > > > > > On Oct 28, 2016, at 10:34 AM, Sudheesh Katkam <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > > Hi Drillers, > > > > > > We have a reasonable number of fixes and features since the last > release > > > [1]. Releasing itself takes a while; so I propose we start the 1.9 > > release > > > process. > > > > > > I volunteer as the release manager, unless there are objections. > > > > > > We should also discuss what the release version number should be after > > 1.9. > > > > > > Thank you, > > > Sudheesh > > > > > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DRILL/fixforversion/12337861 > > > > >
