Home | About | Sematext search-lucene.com search-hadoop.com
 Search Hadoop and all its subprojects:

Switch to Threaded View
HBase, mail # dev - stable HBase branch Was: ANN: The second hbase 0.92.2 release candidate is available for download


Copy link to this message
-
Re: stable HBase branch Was: ANN: The second hbase 0.92.2 release candidate is available for download
Ted Yu 2012-09-12, 23:00
Let's consider the following scenario in chronological order:
0.92.x is released
0.94.y is released
0.92.x+1 is released

Would the stable symlink point alternately to each of the releases as
they're available ?

Or should we have two symlinks, one for 0.92 branch, one for 0.94 branch ?

Thanks

On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 3:56 PM, Jean-Daniel Cryans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:

> Considering that we tag a "release" as stable, and only one at a time,
> how does that quote even relate? To me it's completely orthogonal.
>
> J-D
>
> On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 3:47 PM, Ted Yu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Renaming subject since the discussion may be long.
> >
> > Allow me to quote Todd from another email thread:
> >
> > bq. I think we should be especially conservative about adding even
> > non-invasive features to "stable" branches.
> >
> > Since 0.94 is considered stable, should the above be applicable ?
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> > On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 3:31 PM, lars hofhansl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> >
> >> Wait! 0.94 is the current stable release. Did you just re-point the
> stable
> >> pointer to 0.92?
> >> 0.92 is a maintenance release.
> >>
> >> Are we telling new users to install 0.92.x or 0.94.x? For sure this
> should
> >> be 0.94.x.
> >>
> >>
> >> -- Lars
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> ________________________________
> >>  From: Ted Yu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >> Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2012 3:13 PM
> >> Subject: Re: ANN: The second hbase 0.92.2 release candidate is available
> >> for download
> >>
> >> I wasn't fully aware of the 3 binding vote rule.
> >>
> >> I have restored the symlink.
> >>
> >> Cheers
> >>
> >> On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 3:07 PM, Jean-Daniel Cryans <
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >> >wrote:
> >>
> >> > On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 1:27 PM, Ted Yu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> > > J-D:
> >> > > So far we have 2 +1 (binding) and 2 +1 (non-binding), no -1 on RC1.
> >> > >
> >> > > Do you think I can roll this RC as 0.92.2 ?
> >> >
> >> > Looks like you already did yesterday?
> >> >
> >> > http://apache.cs.utah.edu/hbase/stable/
> >> >
> >> > J-D
> >> >
> >>
>