Thanks guys! Are there any committers that want to create the branch for me? I suppose we could use its Jira number (SQOOP-1367) as its name.
On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 9:45 PM, David Robson < david.rob...@software.dell.com> wrote: > Abe, > > I am not working on Sqoop2 - so while this won't affect me directly, I > personally prefer new features to be done on a separate topic branch then > merged in once they are stable - so I would +1 your idea. > > David > > -----Original Message----- > From: Jarek Jarcec Cecho [mailto:jar...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Jarek > Jarcec Cecho > Sent: Tuesday, 15 July 2014 1:24 PM > To: dev@sqoop.apache.org > Subject: Re: SQOOP-1367 Branch > > + 0 from my side :-) > > Jarcec > > On Jul 14, 2014, at 2:32 PM, Hari Shreedharan <hshreedha...@cloudera.com> > wrote: > > > +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 > >>>>> > >>> > >>> > > > >
