sgtm On Mon, Dec 11, 2017 at 1:49 PM, Thomas Tauber-Marshall < [email protected]> wrote:
> Now that the issues that were brought up here have gone in, I propose that > we branch 2.11 at: > > commit b4cf5f2174b338c097e42d43c32b494a6e0b46c0 > Author: Thomas Tauber-Marshall <[email protected]> > Date: Mon Dec 11 10:02:45 2017 -0800 > > IMPALA-6298: Skip test_profile_fragment_instances on local filesystem > > (minus IMPALA-5017) > > Of course, if there are additional fixes we think should be included, they > can be cherry-picked over. > > On Fri, Dec 8, 2017 at 12:30 PM Thomas Tauber-Marshall < > [email protected]> wrote: > > > So now that https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IMPALA-6292 has gone > > in, and with https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IMPALA-6286 in GVO, I > > think the last currently known blocker is > > https://gerrit.cloudera.org/#/c/8802/. Once that goes in I think we're > > good. > > > > On Thu, Dec 7, 2017 at 5:07 PM Tim Armstrong <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > >> Actually it looks like we have a new blocker that Taras filed: > >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IMPALA-6292 > >> > >> On Thu, Dec 7, 2017 at 10:03 AM, Tim Armstrong <[email protected] > > > >> wrote: > >> > >> > I think that makes sense. We'll have to go through the fix versions of > >> > recent JIRAs and make sure that they weren't set to 2.12 though. > >> > > >> > On Thu, Dec 7, 2017 at 9:33 AM, Thomas Tauber-Marshall < > >> > [email protected]> wrote: > >> > > >> >> Since the response from the community has been good, and now that all > >> of > >> >> the blocker JIRAs targeted for 2.11 have been closed, I propose that > we > >> >> cut > >> >> the release at: > >> >> > >> >> commit a4916e6d5f5f3542100af791534bfaf9ed544720 > >> >> Author: Michael Ho <[email protected]> > >> >> Date: Tue Dec 5 23:01:00 2017 -0800 > >> >> > >> >> IMPALA-6281: Fix use-after-free in InitAuth() > >> >> > >> >> There are still a lot of open JIRAs > >> >> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IMPALA-6225?jql=proje > >> >> ct%20%3D%20IMPALA%20AND%20status%20in%20(Open%2C%20%22In% > >> >> 20Progress%22%2C%20Reopened)%20AND%20%22Target%20Version% > >> >> 22%20%3D%20%22Impala%202.11.0%22> > >> >> targeted at 2.11 at lower priorities, so it would be helpful if > people > >> >> could go through the ones assigned to them and make sure nothing > >> important > >> >> is being missed, otherwise we'll bulk update all of these to target > >> 2.12 > >> >> > >> >> If there are no further concerns, I'll start testing at that commit, > >> and > >> >> if > >> >> all goes well create a release candidate and [VOTE] thread. > >> >> > >> >> On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 2:12 PM Matthew Jacobs <[email protected]> > >> >> wrote: > >> >> > >> >> > +1 > >> >> > > >> >> > Thanks, Thomas! > >> >> > > >> >> > On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 1:50 PM Michael Brown <[email protected]> > >> >> wrote: > >> >> > > >> >> > > +1 > >> >> > > > >> >> > > On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 12:46 PM, Thomas Tauber-Marshall < > >> >> > > [email protected]> wrote: > >> >> > > > >> >> > > > Folks, > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > It has been over 2 months since we released Apache Impala > 2.10.0 > >> and > >> >> > > there > >> >> > > > have been new feature improvements and a good number of bug > fixes > >> >> > checked > >> >> > > > in since then. > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > I propose that we release 2.11.0 soon and I volunteer to be its > >> >> release > >> >> > > > manager. Please speak up and let the community know if anyone > has > >> >> any > >> >> > > > objections to this. > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > Thanks, > >> >> > > > Thomas > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > >> >> > -- > >> >> > Sent from My iPhone > >> >> > > >> >> > >> > > >> > > >> > > >
