Home | About | Sematext search-lucene.com search-hadoop.com
NEW: Monitor These Apps!
elasticsearch, apache solr, apache hbase, hadoop, redis, casssandra, amazon cloudwatch, mysql, memcached, apache kafka, apache zookeeper, apache storm, ubuntu, centOS, red hat, debian, puppet labs, java, senseiDB
 Search Hadoop and all its subprojects:

Switch to Threaded View
HDFS >> mail # dev >> Re: [VOTE] Merge HDFS-4949 to trunk


Copy link to this message
-
Re: [VOTE] Merge HDFS-4949 to trunk
On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 10:07 AM, Suresh Srinivas
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I posted a comment in the other thread about feature branch merges.
>
> My preference is to make sure the requirements we have for regular patches
> be applied to feature branch patch as well (3 +1s is the only exception).
> Also
> adding details about what functionality is missing (I posted a comment on
> HDFS-4949)
> and the changes that deferred that will be done post merge to trunk would
> be good.
>
> It would be better to start the merge vote  when the work is ready instead
> of
> trying to optimize 1 week by doing the required work for merging in
> parallel with
> the vote.

OK.

>
> If all the requirements for merging have been met, I am +1 on the merge,
> without
> the need for restarting the vote.
>

I think the requirements are all in place right now.  I'll create a
JIRA detailing the post-merge subtasks just to make it clearer what
the plan is from here.

If there are no more comments, I'll commit later tonight.

I wouldn't mind waiting a week if there was a feature someone
absolutely felt we needed pre-merge, but I also feel like it would be
two weeks, due to Hadoop Summit next week.

best,
Colin
>
> On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 11:29 PM, Aaron T. Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> I don't necessarily disagree with the general questions about the
>> procedural issues of merge votes. Thanks for bringing that up in the other
>> thread you mentioned. To some extent it seems like much of this has been
>> based on custom, and if folks feel that more precisely defining the merge
>> vote process is warranted, then I think we should take that up over on that
>> thread.
>>
>> With regard to this particular merge vote, I've spoken with Chris offline
>> about his feelings on this. He said that he is not dead-set on restarting
>> the vote, though he suspects that others may be. It seems to me the
>> remaining unfinished asks (e.g. updating the design doc) can reasonably be
>> done either after this vote but before the merge to trunk proper, or could
>> even reasonably be done after merging to trunk.
>>
>> Given that, I'll lend my +1 to this merge. I've been reviewing the branch
>> pretty consistently since work started on it, and have personally
>> run/tested several builds of it along the way. I've also reviewed the
>> design thoroughly. The implementation, overall design, and API seem to me
>> plenty stable enough to be merged into trunk. I know that there remains a
>> handful of javac warnings in the branch that aren't in trunk, but I trust
>> those will be taken care of before the merge.
>>
>> If anyone out there does feel strongly that this merge vote should be
>> restarted, then please speak up soon. Again, we can restart the vote if
>> need be, but I honestly think we'll gain very little by doing so.
>>
>> Best,
>> Aaron
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 5:45 AM, Chris Nauroth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> >wrote:
>>
>> > Hi Andrew,
>> >
>> > I've come to the conclusion that I'm very confused about merge votes.
>>  :-)
>> >  It's not just about HDFS-4949.  I'm confused about all merge votes.
>> >  Rather than muddy the waters here, I've started a separate discussion on
>> > common-dev.
>> >
>> > I do agree with the general plan outlined here, and I will comment
>> directly
>> > on the HDFS-4949 jira with a binding +1 when I see that we've completed
>> > that plan.
>> >
>> > Chris Nauroth
>> > Hortonworks
>> > http://hortonworks.com/
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 2:18 PM, Andrew Wang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> > >wrote:
>> >
>> > > Hey Chris,
>> > >
>> > > Right now we're on track to have all of those things done by tomorrow.
>> > > Since the remaining issues are either not technical or do not involve
>> > major
>> > > changes, I was hoping we could +1 this merge vote in the spirit of "+1
>> > > pending jenkins". We've gotten clean unit test runs on upstream Jenkins
>> > as
>> > > well, so the only fixups we should need for test-patch.sh are findbugs
NEW: Monitor These Apps!
elasticsearch, apache solr, apache hbase, hadoop, redis, casssandra, amazon cloudwatch, mysql, memcached, apache kafka, apache zookeeper, apache storm, ubuntu, centOS, red hat, debian, puppet labs, java, senseiDB