Gentle reminder that all check-ins should be done by tomorrow. Please see the latest statuses of commits that we are targeting:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1UJSXLrfUNZwUnx_ JzkwAcXSxmcbG7meBDad6ZTxlSmw Thank you, Sudheesh On Tue, Nov 1, 2016 at 11:19 AM, Sudheesh Katkam <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 >> > >> > >> > >
