Yes, I meant DRILL-4730; let’s resolve the ticket after the release when we have more time to review.
Currently, rc0 is held up by a regression [1]. Thank you, Sudheesh [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DRILL-5009 <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DRILL-5009> > On Nov 4, 2016, at 9:56 PM, Laurent Goujon <[email protected]> wrote: > > I guess it's DRILL-4730 and not DRILL-4370 > > On Fri, Nov 4, 2016 at 6:23 PM, Sudheesh Katkam <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Out of the 17 requested tickets, we resolved 13 over the week, and 4 have >> been deferred (DRILL-4280, DRILL-4858, DRILL-4370, DRILL-4706). Thank you >> everyone! >> >> I get will get the RC0 out on Monday. >> >> - Sudheesh >> >> On Fri, Nov 4, 2016 at 11:49 AM, Jinfeng Ni <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Agreed with Parth that we probably should start a separate thread to >>> discuss release version number after 1.9.0. >>> >>> I'll start a new thread to discuss that, and leave this thread for >>> drill 1.9.0 release matters. >>> >>> >>> On Thu, Nov 3, 2016 at 3:53 PM, Sudheesh Katkam <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>>> 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 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>> >>
