We would likely comment out all the tests, which could bring about other forms of instability if there were other developers working on other things (without tests). I do believe that there will always be development on Sqoop2.
Jarcec, is that a 0, -1, or +1? -Abe On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 8:48 PM, Jarek Jarcec Cecho <jar...@apache.org> wrote: > I would see reason to create separate branch if we would be doing some new > and possibly breaking feature while working on smaller features on the main > line with possibility to cut release before the new big thing is done. As > SQOOP-1367 seems important enough to finish prior any additional Sqoop 2 > release nor other bigger features, I would be personally fine with > destabilizing the sqoop2 branch and simply do all the drastic changes there. > > Jarcec > > On Jul 10, 2014, at 8:03 PM, Gwen Shapira <gshap...@cloudera.com> wrote: > > > Good idea to work on drastic changes in a separate branch. > > > > Gwen > > > > On Jul 10, 2014 3:00 PM, "Abraham Elmahrek" <a...@apache.org> wrote: > > > >> Dev folks, > >> > >> SQOOP-1367 requires drastic changes to the Sqoop2 code base and will > likely > >> bring some level of instability for a short period of time. Could we > create > >> a separate branch for SQOOP-1367 development? Here are a few reasons why > >> this seems like a good idea: > >> > >> - Since releases are built from the "sqoop2" branch, it seems like it > >> should be stable. > >> - We could disable and enable tests freely as this branches stability > is > >> not as important. > >> - Chunking work up will become a lot easier since we would not care if > >> this branch immediately works. This will make code reviews much > easier. > >> - SQOOP-1367 is a core change to Sqoop2. It will touch several files > and > >> reshape the shape of jobs. > >> > >> -Abe > >> > >
