+1
On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 10:18 PM, Josh Elser josh.el...@gmail.com wrote:
After working on 1.5.2 and today's branch snafu, I think I've come to the
conclusion that our branch naming is more pain than it's worth (I believe I
was the one who primarily argued for branch names as they are
+1 on having branches named for major release lines instead of specific
versions.
On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 8:18 PM, Josh Elser josh.el...@gmail.com wrote:
After working on 1.5.2 and today's branch snafu, I think I've come to the
conclusion that our branch naming is more pain than it's worth (I
, September 22, 2014 11:18:12 PM
Subject: [DISCUSS] Thinking about branch names
After working on 1.5.2 and today's branch snafu, I think I've come to
the conclusion that our branch naming is more pain than it's worth (I
believe I was the one who primarily argued for branch names as they are
current
+1
Using separate branches in this manner just adds complexity. I was
wondering myself why we needed to create separate branches when all we're
doing is tagging/deleting the already released ones. The only difference
between where one leaves off and another begins is the name of the branch.
On
11:18:12 PM
Subject: [DISCUSS] Thinking about branch names
After working on 1.5.2 and today's branch snafu, I think I've come to
the conclusion that our branch naming is more pain than it's worth (I
believe I was the one who primarily argued for branch names as they are
current implemented
On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 11:45 AM, Josh Elser josh.el...@gmail.com wrote:
Personally, I like the succinctness of 1.5 over the ones you
presented. I don't feel like 1.5.x or 1.5-dev tell me anything
more than 1.5 already did so they just turn into more typing. I
don't really think there's a
branch.
- Original Message -
From: Josh Elser josh.el...@gmail.com
To: dev dev@accumulo.apache.org
Sent: Monday, September 22, 2014 11:18:12 PM
Subject: [DISCUSS] Thinking about branch names
After working on 1.5.2 and today's branch snafu, I think I've come
] Thinking about branch names
After working on 1.5.2 and today's branch snafu, I think I've come to
the conclusion that our branch naming is more pain than it's worth (I
believe I was the one who primarily argued for branch names as they are
current implemented, so take that as you want
Another point to consider here is that many projects (such as guava) omit
.0 suffixes on versions (releasing, for instance 11, followed by 11.0.1
and 11.0.2 for bugfixes).
It's probably not a big deal. It's only a slight risk of confusion, and SCM
is not for users, it's for devs, so I'm fine with
Good point, Christopher. I didn't really consider projects outside of
the Hadoop ecosystem. As long as we're cognizant (if our versioning
strings do get better moving forward), I think this shouldn't be an
issue. Hold me honest :)
Christopher wrote:
Another point to consider here is that
After working on 1.5.2 and today's branch snafu, I think I've come to
the conclusion that our branch naming is more pain than it's worth (I
believe I was the one who primarily argued for branch names as they are
current implemented, so take that as you want).
* Trying to making a new branch
11 matches
Mail list logo
