My plan for the 1.0 release is to do the 0.99.0 first, then maybe a couple more 0.99.x, then turn one of those into 1.0, similar to what we did in 0.95 -> 0.96. For that, we should be tagging jiras with 0.99.0 for now (not 1.0.0). I'll do a pass over jira to do the move. I'll move 1.0.0 to remove confusion.
After the first 0.99.0RC is cut, we should rename trunk to 2.0-SNAPSHOT, and we should do a 1.1-SNAPSHOT branch. Otherwise, if any patches comes that we want to include, but not in the 1.x series, we cannot commit it. Enis On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 4:48 PM, Andrew Purtell <[email protected]> wrote: > > So if we want allow working on the next major version while maintaining > minor version of the current major version we would not release from trunk. > Is that what you are concerned about, Andy? > > Not exactly. If we say the next major version is 2, and that is trunk, then > the question is how much time would elapse before version 2 is forked from > trunk, and how quickly a release would happen on the new version 2 major > branch. In other words the concern is about a large delta between trunk and > production, months of effort to clear the debt. > > > On Wed, Apr 16, 2014 at 10:05 PM, lars hofhansl <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Now that you point it out Nick and Andy. > > > > It seems to be that we need three branches: > > - next major version (2) in trunk > > - current major version (1) in a "branch-1" (at some point that was > > branched of trunk) > > > > - current minor (1.0) in a "branch-1.0". This was branched of a minor > > branch. From this we create the actual release tags (1.0.0). > > > > So if we want allow working on the next major version while maintaining > > minor version of the current major version we would not release from > trunk. > > Is that what you are concerned about, Andy? > > > > -- Lars > > > > > > > > ________________________________ > > From: Andrew Purtell <[email protected]> > > To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> > > Sent: Wednesday, April 16, 2014 9:44 PM > > Subject: Re: 0.99.0 and 1.0.0 targets in Jira > > > > > > One thing I would like to make sure of is we do not get into a situation > > like Hadoop common where we are no longer making regular releases off of > > trunk. > > > > > > > > On Wed, Apr 16, 2014 at 9:40 PM, Nick Dimiduk <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > On Wed, Apr 16, 2014 at 9:28 PM, Jonathan Hsieh <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > > > I'd prefer if we got rid of one -- maybe mark all as 0.99 and remove > > > 1.0.0. > > > > When we branch 1.0, we rename 0.99 to 1.0 and create a 1.1-SNAPSHOT > > > branch > > > > and make trunk 2.0-SNAPSHOT (or 1.99-SNAPSHOT?). > > > > > > > > > > Wouldn't trunk become 1.1-SNAPSHOT? > > > > > > On Wed, Apr 16, 2014 at 9:11 PM, lars hofhansl <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > I see we have both targets in Jira and some issues targeted to > 0.99.0 > > > and > > > > > some to 1.0.0. > > > > > > > > > > Which one should we use? > > > > > > > > > > -- Lars > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > // Jonathan Hsieh (shay) > > > > // HBase Tech Lead, Software Engineer, Cloudera > > > > // [email protected] // @jmhsieh > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Best regards, > > > > - Andy > > > > Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet Hein > > (via Tom White) > > > > > -- > Best regards, > > - Andy > > Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet Hein > (via Tom White) >
