Yeah, that works too. Generally, I think people go with project.version, but it doesn't really matter ;)
-Jesse On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 9:22 PM, Rottinghuis, Joep <[email protected]>wrote: > Just filed a jira with patch for this. See HBASE-4447. > > Thanks, > > Joep > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Stack > Sent: Monday, September 19, 2011 9:21 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: Branching for 0.92 [WAS -> Re: [DISCUSSION] Accumulo, another > BigTable clone, has shown up on Apache Incubator as a proposal] > > On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 8:53 PM, Jesse Yates <[email protected]> > wrote: > > You should be able to pretty easily set in in the pom (under > > properties), and then just use in the <version> tag. > > > > Where are the pom properties Jesse? > Thanks, > St.Ack > > > That way whenever you want to to bump version numbers, its one easy > change. > > > > -Jesse Yates > > > > On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 8:47 PM, Stack <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> I changed versions. How would you make hbase.version work? Looks > >> like you can't set project.version. I could change it to > >> ${hbase.version} but then how to do the default value? > >> St.Ack > >> > >> On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 8:24 PM, Rottinghuis, Joep > >> <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > Trunk should probably go to get a newer version as well (0.93?) Can > >> > you make the version a property that I can override using > >> -Dhbase.version=0.92-my-own-name? > >> > > >> > Thanks, > >> > > >> > Joep > >> > -----Original Message----- > >> > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of > >> Stack > >> > Sent: Monday, September 19, 2011 8:23 PM > >> > To: [email protected] > >> > Subject: Re: Branching for 0.92 [WAS -> Re: [DISCUSSION] Accumulo, > >> another BigTable clone, has shown up on Apache Incubator as a > >> proposal] > >> > > >> > That makes sense. Let me make the change. > >> > St.Ack > >> > > >> > On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 8:02 PM, Rottinghuis, Joep < > >> [email protected]> wrote: > >> >> Michael, > >> >> > >> >> Should the version in the pom on the 0.92 branch point to > >> 0.92.0-SNAPSHOT? > >> >> If so I can file a bug and supply patch for same. > >> >> Or are you updating that only when you get ready for a release? > >> >> > >> >> Thanks, > >> >> > >> >> Joep > >> >> -----Original Message----- > >> >> From: Rottinghuis, Joep [mailto:[email protected]] > >> >> Sent: Monday, September 19, 2011 6:02 PM > >> >> To: [email protected] > >> >> Subject: RE: Branching for 0.92 [WAS -> Re: [DISCUSSION] Accumulo, > >> >> another BigTable clone, has shown up on Apache Incubator as a > >> >> proposal] > >> >> > >> >> Thanks St.Ack! > >> >> > >> >> Joep > >> >> -----Original Message----- > >> >> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf > >> >> Of Stack > >> >> Sent: Sunday, September 18, 2011 12:12 PM > >> >> To: [email protected] > >> >> Subject: Re: Branching for 0.92 [WAS -> Re: [DISCUSSION] Accumulo, > >> >> another BigTable clone, has shown up on Apache Incubator as a > >> >> proposal] > >> >> > >> >> I was sort of waiting on a clean build to TRUNK before branching. > >> >> I > >> think we should be there in next hour or so. I'll branch this > >> evening or by tomorrow morning. That OK w/ you Joep? > >> >> > >> >> St.Ack > >> >> > >> >> On Sat, Sep 17, 2011 at 8:42 PM, Rottinghuis, Joep < > >> [email protected]> wrote: > >> >>> Any update on the 0.92 branch getting cut? > >> >>> > >> >>> Cheers, > >> >>> > >> >>> Joep > >> >>> ________________________________________ > >> >>> From: [email protected] [[email protected]] On Behalf Of > >> >>> Stack [[email protected]] > >> >>> Sent: Tuesday, September 06, 2011 8:42 PM > >> >>> To: [email protected] > >> >>> Subject: Branching for 0.92 [WAS -> Re: [DISCUSSION] Accumulo, > >> >>> another BigTable clone, has shown up on Apache Incubator as a > >> >>> proposal] > >> >>> > >> >>> I'd like to propose branching friday week, the 16th. Hopefully > >> >>> that will might get folks to focus on these last outstanding > >> >>> issues (of which there are quite a few). > >> >>> > >> >>> Thereafter we need to work on stabilization which I'm sure will > >> >>> turn up at least one bug, maybe two (smile). Stabilization will > >> >>> run for a good while I'd say and will take some effort all > >> >>> around. Only bug fixes should go into 0.92 branch (J-D might > >> >>> have to tie me to the mast). > >> >>> > >> >>> Should we discuss in a separate whether to pull in security? > >> >>> > >> >>> St.Ack > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 6:44 PM, Andrew Purtell > >> >>> <[email protected]> > >> wrote: > >> >>>> I also agreed at the time to hold off refactoring the build for > >> >>>> Maven > >> modules and supporting RPC engine variants. I would still have the > >> same opinion if not for recent events. > >> >>>> > >> >>>> How much work remains for 0.92? If more than a few week's worth, > >> >>>> then > >> a parallel refactor of the build could happen, with a final merge step. > >> >>>> > >> >>>> Best regards, > >> >>>> > >> >>>> - Andy > >> >>>> > >> >>>> On Tue Sep 6th, 2011 12:02 PM PDT Gary Helmling wrote: > >> >>>> > >> >>>>>> Seems like committing it will disrupt the build and src tree > layout. > >> >>>>>> Gary was holding off till we branched but 0.92 branching is > >> >>>>>> taking too long. > >> >>>>>> > >> >>>>>> + Lets branch this friday, or next? > >> >>>>>> + And or, run a vote on whether we should commit security now > >> >>>>>> + before > >> >>>>>> we branch or after > >> >>>>>> > >> >>>>>> > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>>This is getting off topic for the current thread, so I'll open a > >> >>>>>new thread to take a vote on converting trunk back in to maven > modules. > >> >>>>>This is what would be necessary to integrate the various > >> >>>>>security > >> bits. > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>>The last discussion we had on this was on the dev list at the > >> >>>>>end of May/beginning of June: > >> >>>>>http://search-hadoop.com/m/iXZmd2aZwBE1 > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>>I agreed as much as anyone that we should hold off until after > >> >>>>>branching > >> >>>>>0.92 in order to avoid the disruption of moving the entire > >> >>>>>source tree around. So I have been holding off on this on my > >> >>>>>own discretion and any delay sits mostly with me. > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>>Of course, that was three months ago and we still haven't branched. > >> >>>>>In hindsight, if we were aware how long the 0.92 process would > >> >>>>>go on, I think the thread might have reached a different > conclusion. > >> >>>>>In any case, I think it warrants another discussion. > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>>--gh > >> >>>> > >> >>>> > >> >> > >> > > >> > > >
