I'm +1 for branching sooner rather than later, (it was supposed to happen
today?) and with the numbering scheme. It will cause some pain for
committers with things in flight, but it always will for something, and as
long as this stuff gets in soon it isn't too onerous.
On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 9:58 PM, lars hofhansl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> +1 on branching now. Otherwise we'll find new "excuses" to delay it
> That said, maybe Elliot's client move can be accommodated before we
> From: Stack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: HBase Dev List <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Friday, February 22, 2013 12:56 PM
> Subject: Re: Heads-up! Branching 0.96 (actually 0.95) this weekend
> On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 12:26 PM, Ted Yu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I am generally fine with branching.
> > Looking at the blocker / critical bug list for 0.96, the number of such
> > issues (39 as of writing of this email) increased compared to a few days
> > ago.
> > People marked their JIRAs this way so that their work gets picked up for
> > 0.96
> > Considering that all the fixes for these issues would be integrated twice
> > once branching happens, I wonder if there should be a short buffer before
> > branching so that some of these high priority fixes can go in.
> Yeah. This is a problem. We have been running for months w/ blockers and
> criticals at about 8 and 30 count respectively and the number hasn't been
> dropping. That the number has gone up because we've called for branch is
> good I think because it means folks are starting to act as though 0.95/0.96
> is going to happen whereas -- witness the unchanged blocker/critical count
> over months -- this was not the case previously.
> Regards the pain of committing in multiple places, yeah, I think there is
> no way out around it, not unless we want to put the 0.95/0.96 branch off
> until, when?
// Jonathan Hsieh (shay)
// Software Engineer, Cloudera
// [EMAIL PROTECTED]