IMHO, I don't think we have the bandwidth to maintain any more branches. I'm also not sure this fits the criteria for a lazy consensus vote.
The original intent of the 4.0 branch was meant to host all 4.x releases. In general releases are compatible in the following manner: - a minor release must be deployed first on the server and then at any point later on the client. It will require a rolling restart, but no downtime. - a patch release may be deployed on the client and server in either order. If the patch requires the server jar to be deployed (which would likely be most of the time), it will require a rolling restart and no downtime will be required. - a major release may require downtime, as it may require the client and server side to both be deployed together. Given this, the model was that folks would upgrade to the latest 3.0/4.0 release if they need a particular fix. For example, if someone is on 4.0.0 and a bug gets fixed down the road in 4.2.5, they should be able to upgrade as above relatively seamlessly. This CDH incompatibility is different. I think we should brainstorm on that one in a different thread. Thanks, James On Thu, Aug 21, 2014 at 10:08 AM, Andrew Purtell <[email protected]> wrote: > Monday 8/25 :-) > > > On Thu, Aug 21, 2014 at 10:07 AM, Andrew Purtell <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> The latest code on branch 4.0 builds as version 4.1.0. >> >> I propose the following series of actions: >> >> - Create a new branch 4.1 at the revision where the version in the POM was >> updated to 4.1.0. >> >> - Reset the branch 4.0 head to the version prior, with a force push >> >> Let's use lazy consensus ( >> http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html#LazyConsensus) and run this >> vote for 72 hours. If nobody objects I will take the above actions Monday >> 8/24. >> >> -- >> 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)
