Hi, Michael: Thanks, I missed that. I reverted IMPALA-7148 since it is targeted for 3.2.0 and doesn't have any effect without IMPALA-4063.
Alexandra: Unfortunately I cannot see the image you attached. Anyway, I also counted 10 new doc commits targeted for 3.1.0: https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=impala.git;a=shortlog;h=refs/heads/branch-3.1.0 7d3e9be [DOCS] Copy edits in impala_custom_timezones 9749096 [DOCS] A number of typos were fixed in impala_dedicated_coordinator 3d1afb4 IMPALA-7233: [DOCS] Support for IANA timezone database df6e92f IMPALA-7815: [DOCS] Release notes for 3.1 3ec779a IMPALA-7861: [DOCS] TLS enabled by default regardless of URI scheme 0d5b5d4 [DOCS] Added a note in impala_scan_bytes_limit.xml f5348d4 IMPALA-7836: [DOCS] Format changes in impala_topn_bytes_limit.xml bd573d1 IMPALA-7634: [DOCS] Document the new SHUTDOWN statement 8872e8b IMPALA-7836: [DOCS] Document TOPN_BYTES_LIMIT query option 174ac2f IMPALA-7806: [DOCS] Updated Known Issues in 3.1 So I moved forward to do the RC1, I'll send a [VOTE] mail about it shortly. *If anyone has objections about the release candidate*, e.g. you want to add/remove a commit, you can vote with -1 on the RC1. Thanks, Zoltan On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 2:23 AM Alexandra Rodoni <arod...@cloudera.com> wrote: > I count 10 doc commits since your last cherry-pick: > > [image: image.png] > Thanks! > > On Mon, Nov 19, 2018 at 8:28 AM Zoltan Borok-Nagy <borokna...@cloudera.com> > wrote: > >> Hey Folks, >> >> Status of the 3.1.0 release: >> >> I chose IMPALA-5950 (e3a7027) as branching point, and cherry picked >> commits >> until IMPALA-5031 (067657a) (inclusive range) with the following >> exceptions: >> >> - IMPALA-7213 <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IMPALA-7213>: >> Port >> ReportExecStatus() RPCs to KRPC* (requested not to include, tagged as >> 3.2.0)* >> - IMPALA-4063 <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IMPALA-4063>: >> Make >> fragment instance reports per-query (or per-host) instead of >> per-fragment >> instance *(t**agged as 3.2.0, also not a clean cherry-pick)* >> - IMPALA-7828 <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IMPALA-7828>: >> test_mem_leak() >> is flaky *(t**agged as 3.2.0, also not a clean cherry-pick)* >> - IMPALA-7477 <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IMPALA-7477>: >> Improve >> QueryResultSet interface to allow appending a batch of rows at a time >> *(t**agged as 3.2.0, **but it could be cleanly cherry-picked**)* >> >> Although "IMPALA-7148 >> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IMPALA-7148>: >> test_profile_fragment_instances >> is flaky" is tagged as 3.2.0, I decided to include it since it was a clean >> cherry-pick and it only fixes a flaky test. >> >> *From now on please tag your Jiras' fix version as 3.2.0*, or send me an >> email if you want to include your change in 3.1.0. >> The release branch can be viewed here: >> >> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=impala.git;a=shortlog;h=refs/heads/branch-3.1.0 >> >> I'll move on with the process when the docs are ready. >> >> BR, >> Zoltan >> >> >> >> >> >> On Mon, Nov 12, 2018 at 10:14 PM Alexandra Rodoni <arod...@cloudera.com> >> wrote: >> >> > I think about 7 working days will be enough to wrap up the doc work for >> > 3.1: >> > - TOPN query option >> > - SHUTDOWN command >> > - TIMEZONE changes >> > - Minor release-related work >> > >> > >> > >> > On Mon, Nov 12, 2018 at 9:17 AM, Zoltan Borok-Nagy < >> > borokna...@cloudera.com> >> > wrote: >> > >> > > Hey Folks, >> > > >> > > It's been a week since we last talked about the 3.1.0 release. >> > > >> > > So I guess we'll only leave out the RPC-related commit from Michael. >> > > >> > > Is it OK if I start the branching and testing tomorrow? >> > > Then, I'll cherry-pick the docs-related changes from Alex after they >> land >> > > in the repo. >> > > >> > > Or, do you prefer to wait with the branching until the docs-related >> > changes >> > > are made? >> > > This way we'll have more changes in the release. >> > > >> > > BR, >> > > Zoltan >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > On Tue, Nov 6, 2018 at 4:23 PM Zoltan Borok-Nagy < >> > borokna...@cloudera.com> >> > > wrote: >> > > >> > > > Thanks for the suggestions. >> > > > I wasn't aware of interactive git rebase. It might makes it simpler >> to >> > > > carry out (a) if there are no conflicts. >> > > > >> > > > Zoltan >> > > > >> > > > On Tue, Nov 6, 2018 at 4:06 PM Jim Apple <jbap...@cloudera.com> >> wrote: >> > > > >> > > >> > >> > > >> > I just have a technical question about it. Should we >> > > >> > a) select an early branching point then do a lot of cherry picks >> for >> > > the >> > > >> > commits we want in and leave out the risky ones >> > > >> > b) select a recent branching point then revert the risky commits >> on >> > > the >> > > >> > release branch >> > > >> > >> > > >> >> > > >> I think (a) is easier for someone who is doing some git work on the >> > > >> branch, >> > > >> but our branches tend to be used once for releases and then rarely >> > > touched >> > > >> again, so it's not a disaster to do (b). >> > > >> >> > > > >> > > >> > >> >
