+1 for me :)

Thanks,
Hari




On Jul 14, 2014, at 2:24 PM, Abraham Elmahrek <a...@cloudera.com> wrote:

> 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
>>>> 
>> 
>> 

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail

Reply via email to