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

Switch to Threaded View
Accumulo, mail # dev - Branching


Copy link to this message
-
Re: Branching
Jesse Yates 2011-11-01, 17:59
I'm fine with whatever the current system is - it seems to be working fine.

It would just be nice if there was some documentation up on the website (or
whatever the ultimate source of truth is going to be) as to what the
process is and what the numbering means.

-- Jesse
-------------------
Jesse Yates
240-888-2200
@jesse_yates

On Tue, Nov 1, 2011 at 7:43 AM, John W Vines <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> The way we've been working in 1.x being major releases with minor releases
> (1.X.Y) for major bug fixes (occasionally rolling in minor improvements
> with said bug fixes). We've been running a ~6 month dev cycle per release
> which is flexible as features come.
>
> Personally, I think this method has worked well for us and I see no reason
> to mess with it.
>
>
> John
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> | From: "Jesse Yates" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> | To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> | Sent: Monday, October 31, 2011 11:48:27 PM
> | Subject: Re: Branching
> | I'm okay with branching the current trunk into 1.4.
> |
> | Here is the link to the current issues for
> | 1.4<
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/IssueNavigator.jspa?reset=true&jqlQuery=project+%3D+ACCUMULO+AND+fixVersion+%3D+%221.4.0%22+AND+status+%3D+Open+ORDER+BY+priority+DESC&mode=hide
> >
> |
> | My only concern is how the numbering for releases works. Is it that
> | odd is
> | dev and even is public release? Or are all 1.X considered public
> | releases
> | and then 1.X.Y is the minor dev release? We probably should establish
> | our
> | plans on this so we have a community standard for doing the versions
> | (though we can always change it later.
> |
> | --Jesse Yates
> | -------------------
> | Jesse Yates
> | 240-888-2200
> | @jesse_yates
> |
> | On Thu, Oct 27, 2011 at 10:38 AM, John W Vines
> | <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
> |
> | > There has been some discussion about branching 1.4. There have been
> | > some
> | > rounds of testing done against a few iterations and we're trying to
> | > wind it
> | > down so we can be prepared for release. Unofficially we've been
> | > operating
> | > under a semi-feature freeze to avoid larger disruptions to the
> | > testing. For
> | > the sake of openness though, we seriously need to formally declare a
> | > feature freeze. I feel the best way to do this is to branch 1.4,
> | > this way
> | > 1.5 feature development can continue while we root out large scale
> | > testing
> | > bugs in the 1.4 branch.
> | >
> | > Mentors- How long is an appropriate time to wait between announcing
> | > and
> | > carrying forward with branching? Should we put it up to vote or is
> | > simply
> | > no one objecting to branching within the timeframe sufficient?
> | >
> | > Everyone- I think we've done a fairly good job labeling tickets as
> | > to
> | > whether they're 1.4 or 1.5. There are still some tickets which are
> | > marked
> | > 1.4, I think, which could/should be pushed on to 1.5 instead of
> | > holding
> | > back 1.4. In case of this, please open up discussions on the tickets
> | > so we
> | > can come to a decision on a case by case basis. There are a few
> | > items of
> | > discussion, particularly
> | > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ACCUMULO-74and
> | > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ACCUMULO-19 which both involve
> | > packaging of Accumulo. I feel the best way to deal with these
> | > tickets in
> | > 1.4 is as follows-
> | >
> | > If the packaging for them is done before we do the final update for
> | > 1.4
> | > (which we will determine after sufficient testing of the frozen
> | > product)
> | > and they do not interfere with standard operating procedure, I think
> | > we
> | > should include them in 1.4 as the impact of these pom changes is
> | > very small
> | > but the impact could be large. However, I don't think we should be
> | > left
> | > waiting for these changes if they are the only things left.
> | >
> | >
> | > Please discuss!
> | >
> | > John
> | >
>