On Wed, May 12, 2010 at 11:29 AM, Todd Lipcon wrote:
> I am sort of +0 on cutting a new branch at that point. What I would
> prefer to see is moving towards an "always releasable trunk" model, in
> that stuff doesn't go into trunk unless it's reasonably usable. Large
> changes should be done in fe
On Wed, May 12, 2010 at 11:57 AM, Jonathan Gray wrote:
> The idea would be to do this once new features will no longer be allowed and
> anything but bug/stability fixes would not be allowed. Either we branch off
> trunk once we're ready to make that call, or we hold off on commits to trunk.
>
2248 is going in soon, I'm working on it now.
On Wed, May 12, 2010 at 11:57 AM, Jonathan Gray wrote:
>> > If Ryan can do the port of 2248 to trunk this week, then I'm +1 on
>> > merging branch into trunk. I would then think that in a 2-3 week
>> > timeframe we would cut a new branch off of trunk
> > If Ryan can do the port of 2248 to trunk this week, then I'm +1 on
> > merging branch into trunk. I would then think that in a 2-3 week
> > timeframe we would cut a new branch off of trunk and stabilize it.
> >
>
> I am sort of +0 on cutting a new branch at that point. What I would
> prefer t
On Wed, May 12, 2010 at 8:16 AM, Jonathan Gray wrote:
> Thanks for digging more stack.
>
> I agree that after going over the diffs between branch and trunk, the better
> choice is to switch to trunk and merge in the stuff that went into branch
> that didn't make it into trunk. I went through th
th me.
> -Original Message-
> From: jdcry...@gmail.com [mailto:jdcry...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Jean-
> Daniel Cryans
> Sent: Wednesday, May 12, 2010 11:08 AM
> To: hbase-dev@hadoop.apache.org
> Subject: Re: JIRAs committed on trunk but not branch (take 2)
>
> I did. My po
.client. And don't agree that
> we do. Was it someone else who said that?
>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Andrew Purtell [mailto:apurt...@apache.org]
>> Sent: Wednesday, May 12, 2010 10:25 AM
>> To: hbase-dev@hadoop.apache.org
>> Subject: RE: JIRA
So I was just confused. Never mind.
- Andy
> From: Jonathan Gray
> Subject: RE: JIRAs committed on trunk but not branch (take 2)
>
> Hmm I don't recall claiming we'd need
> o.a.h.h.client. And don't agree that we do. Was
> it someone else who said t
he.org
> Subject: RE: JIRAs committed on trunk but not branch (take 2)
>
> Hey Jon,
>
> You claimed on on IRC, we'll need o.a.h.h.client for the next major
> release. So you have revised that opinion? Maybe I'm just confused?
>
> > From: Jonathan Gray
I basically share Jon's position on branch vs. trunk and 2248.
> From: Jonathan Gray
[...]
> I agree that after going over the diffs between branch and
> trunk, the better choice is to switch to trunk and merge in
> the stuff that went into branch that didn't make it into
> trunk. I went through
Hey Jon,
You claimed on on IRC, we'll need o.a.h.h.client for the next major release. So
you have revised that opinion? Maybe I'm just confused?
> From: Jonathan Gray
> Subject: RE: JIRAs committed on trunk but not branch (take 2)
>
> What are peoples thoughts on moving t
dd3b1005041331r7d8f696di370a279ff6058...@mail.gmail.com%3e).
JG
> -Original Message-
> From: saint@gmail.com [mailto:saint@gmail.com] On Behalf Of
> Stack
> Sent: Tuesday, May 11, 2010 10:45 PM
> To: hbase-dev@hadoop.apache.org
> Subject: Merging 0.20 BRANCH and T
o: hbase-dev@hadoop.apache.org
>> Subject: Re: JIRAs committed on trunk but not branch (take 2)
>>
>> I think 0.21 is the time to move to o.a.hbase. Pushing it out makes
>> it more painful, and it's just a package name change at least.
>>
>> -ryan
>>
>
;> -Original Message-
>> From: Ryan Rawson [mailto:ryano...@gmail.com]
>> Sent: Tuesday, May 11, 2010 7:18 PM
>> To: hbase-dev@hadoop.apache.org
>> Subject: Re: JIRAs committed on trunk but not branch (take 2)
>>
>> I think 0.21 is the time to move to o.a.h
Where 0.21 is the new 0.20.5, perhaps to be released as 0.90? :)
> -Original Message-
> From: Ryan Rawson [mailto:ryano...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, May 11, 2010 7:18 PM
> To: hbase-dev@hadoop.apache.org
> Subject: Re: JIRAs committed on trunk but not branch (take 2)
&g
break compatibility for the release that follows
> our next one.
>
> JG
>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Jonathan Gray [mailto:jg...@facebook.com]
>> Sent: Tuesday, May 11, 2010 7:12 PM
>> To: hbase-dev@hadoop.apache.org
>> Subject: RE: JIRAs co
k as well.
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Ryan Rawson [mailto:ryano...@gmail.com]
> > Sent: Tuesday, May 11, 2010 6:59 PM
> > To: hbase-dev@hadoop.apache.org
> > Subject: Re: JIRAs committed on trunk but not branch (take 2)
> >
> > This is a big
com]
> Sent: Tuesday, May 11, 2010 6:59 PM
> To: hbase-dev@hadoop.apache.org
> Subject: Re: JIRAs committed on trunk but not branch (take 2)
>
> This is a big list, but not many things are significant... Lots of
> little fixes, fixes due to first ivy then maven. Other things we
>
This is a big list, but not many things are significant... Lots of
little fixes, fixes due to first ivy then maven. Other things we
should have (such as junit4 and other speed improvements) anyways,
etc.
On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 5:40 PM, Jonathan Gray wrote:
> Looked botched to me on receipt... t
Looked botched to me on receipt... trying again:
Below is a list I compiled of trunk-only JIRAs.
This list contains JIRAs that are Fixed and have a Fix Version of 0.21 and no
other versions (so only as accurate as the jira fix versions are).
[HBASE-410] [testing] Speed up the test suite
Below is a list I compiled of trunk-only JIRAs.
This list contains JIRAs that are Fixed and have a Fix Version of 0.21 and no
other versions (so only as accurate as the jira fix versions are).
[HBASE-410] [testing] Speed up the test suite
[HBASE-1276] [testing] Upgrade to JUnit 4.x and use @Bef
21 matches
Mail list logo
