I am currently in the process of committing DRILL-5009 and DRILL-5007. I will send out a release candidate after that.
Thank you, Sudheesh > On Nov 7, 2016, at 2:14 PM, Sudheesh Katkam <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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] >> <mailto:[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] >> <mailto:[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] >>> <mailto:[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] >>>> <mailto:[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_ >>>>> <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] <mailto:[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] <mailto:[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 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>> >
