Ahh, I see. Perhaps we can name our future branches after y releases and not z releases?
The only reason to have a branch for each z release is if we need to patch z release n after z release n+1 has shipped. On Wed, Mar 2, 2016 at 6:30 AM, Jean-Daniel Cryans <[email protected]> wrote: > We named that branch branch-0.7.0, not 0.7 > > On Tue, Mar 1, 2016 at 9:53 PM, Adar Dembo <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Why aren't we reusing branch-0.7? Shouldn't every 0.7.x release be based > > there? > > > > On Tuesday, March 1, 2016, Jean-Daniel Cryans <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > I pushed all the backports for review on a new branch called > > branch-0.7.x. > > > > > > There's still the question of what we want to fix from KUDU-1347. > > > > > > J-D > > > > > > On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 3:15 PM, Todd Lipcon <[email protected] > > > <javascript:;>> wrote: > > > > > > > On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 3:14 PM, Jean-Daniel Cryans < > > [email protected] > > > <javascript:;>> > > > > wrote: > > > > > Yeah good point about known issues. > > > > > > > > Right, I guess I should have mentioned that we should doc the issues > > > > you mentioned as 'known issues' in 0.7.0, especially if any are > > > > regressions (I think KUDU-1325 is, but the others aren't) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 3:12 PM, Todd Lipcon <[email protected] > > > <javascript:;>> wrote: > > > > > > > > > >> +1 from me. > > > > >> > > > > >> I'll try to wrap up KUDU-1341 as well, but given that it's a bit > of > > a > > > > >> riskier change we'll need some good testing of it. So, > > reaslitically, > > > > >> it might not make the cut. I wouldn't hold up the release for it, > > > > >> though we should add it to "known issues". > > > > >> > > > > >> -Todd > > > > >> > > > > >> On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 2:38 PM, Jean-Daniel Cryans < > > > > [email protected] <javascript:;>> > > > > >> wrote: > > > > >> > Hello Kudu devs, > > > > >> > > > > > >> > Now that 0.7.0 is out of the way, we can think about what's > next. > > > > >> > > > > > >> > During our testing of this last version we found some > non-critical > > > > issues > > > > >> > that I think may be good bringing to folks earlier than our next > > > > planned > > > > >> > major release. This is my short list of commits: > > > > >> > > > > > >> > KUDU-1325: more crash avoidance during remote bootstrap and > tablet > > > > >> deletion > > > > >> > KUDU-1343. [java client] Scan sequence id is never reset between > > > > tablets > > > > >> > KUDU-1345. Fix case in which hybrid clock can run backwards > > > > >> > > > > > >> > Also, it'd be nice to fix our small license issues: > > > > >> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/KUDU-1347 > > > > >> > > > > > >> > Anything else you good folks would like to see in there? FWIW I > > > don't > > > > >> want > > > > >> > too much bloat, just what's really useful. Following the plan > from > > > my > > > > >> "1.0" > > > > >> > email, a 0.8.0 would come out in April anyways. > > > > >> > > > > > >> > As for a timeline, I'm hoping to get it all together by the end > of > > > > next > > > > >> > week. > > > > >> > > > > > >> > Thanks, > > > > >> > > > > > >> > J-D > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> -- > > > > >> Todd Lipcon > > > > >> Software Engineer, Cloudera > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > Todd Lipcon > > > > Software Engineer, Cloudera > > > > > > > > > >
