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

Switch to Plain View
HBase, mail # dev - Resolved JIRAs


+
Lars George 2013-07-29, 13:06
+
Nicolas Liochon 2013-07-29, 13:18
+
Lars George 2013-07-29, 13:46
+
Ted Yu 2013-07-29, 13:57
+
Nicolas Liochon 2013-07-29, 16:38
+
lars hofhansl 2013-07-29, 17:23
+
Lars George 2013-07-29, 18:06
+
Andrew Purtell 2013-07-29, 19:19
+
Lars George 2013-07-29, 20:41
+
Andrew Purtell 2013-07-29, 20:43
+
Stack 2013-07-29, 21:06
+
Uma Maheswara Rao G 2013-07-29, 20:54
+
lars hofhansl 2013-07-29, 21:22
+
Andrew Purtell 2013-07-29, 21:34
+
Ted Yu 2013-07-29, 21:39
+
lars hofhansl 2013-07-29, 21:45
+
Enis Söztutar 2013-07-30, 02:01
+
lars hofhansl 2013-07-30, 04:30
+
Ted Yu 2013-07-30, 04:43
+
Nicolas Liochon 2013-07-30, 05:00
+
Lars George 2013-07-30, 05:21
Copy link to this message
-
Re: Resolved JIRAs
Jesse Yates 2013-07-30, 06:03
+1 for #3.

And well articulated Lars (H).
-------------------
Jesse Yates
@jesse_yates
jyates.github.com
On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 10:21 PM, Lars George <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> +1 for #3
>
> On Jul 30, 2013, at 7:00, Nicolas Liochon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > +1 for #3 as well
> > Le 30 juil. 2013 06:44, "Ted Yu" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit :
> >
> >> I would lean toward #3.
> >>
> >> Cheers
> >>
> >> On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 9:30 PM, lars hofhansl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> >>
> >>> As long as we all agree. :)
> >>>
> >>> We have three options:
> >>>
> >>> 1. separate jiras for each version
> >>> 2. last release closes jira
> >>> 3. first release closes jira, separate jiras needed for further changes
> >>>
> >>> It should also be easy to determine which jiras need to be close and be
> >>> able to do that in bulk. That is easy in #1 and #3, but hard for #2.
> >>> #1 and #2 are easier to understand.
> >>> #3 can be confusing.
> >>> #1 is cumbersome.
> >>>
> >>> My vote would remain with #3.
> >>>
> >>> -- Lars
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> ________________________________
> >>> From: Enis Söztutar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >>> To: "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; lars hofhansl <
> >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >>> Sent: Monday, July 29, 2013 7:01 PM
> >>> Subject: Re: Resolved JIRAs
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> I think it makes sense to group fix versions in the same jira as long
> as
> >>> there is no significant time delay between patches getting in. First
> >>> release closing the issue also makes sense, since closing is basically
> >>> marking the issue as complete. If addendums are needed, we can do
> another
> >>> jira.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 2:45 PM, lars hofhansl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Yeah, but that would be a lot of extra jiras to file.
> >>>> I think we can co-fix issues across multiple branches exactly until
> one
> >>> of them is released.
> >>>>
> >>>> We should not add new patches over long time spans to the same jira
> >>> anyway.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> -- Lars
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> ----- Original Message -----
> >>>>
> >>>> From: Ted Yu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >>>> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >>>> Cc: lars hofhansl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >>>> Sent: Monday, July 29, 2013 2:39 PM
> >>>> Subject: Re: Resolved JIRAs
> >>>>
> >>>> bq. another way to do this is not have issues that target multiple
> >>>> branches/releases.
> >>>>
> >>>> +1
> >>>>
> >>>> On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 2:34 PM, Andrew Purtell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>>> The argument could also be made that *any* release should lead to
> >>> closing
> >>>>> the issue
> >>>>>
> >>>>> For issues that have multiple commit/target versions, we can close it
> >>> after
> >>>>> the first release goes out but then we can't change it's state if
> >>> there's
> >>>>> an issue with another branch/release, maybe as simple as making sure
> >> it
> >>> got
> >>>>> committed there or (re)testing. That could be fine, I have no strong
> >>>>> opinion.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Or another way to do this is not have issues that target multiple
> >>>>> branches/releases.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 2:22 PM, lars hofhansl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Hmm... That would would be difficult to track in bulk, though.
> >>>>>> It's true that I have closed all 0.94.x issues when 0.94.x is
> >>> released.
> >>>>>> That has been very helpful to identify jiras that folks mislabel
> >> later
> >>>>>> (which happens very frequently).
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> The argument could also be made that *any* release should lead to
> >>> closing
> >>>>>> the issue (as long as it has a fix for said version, of course).At
> >>> that
> >>>>>> point the code is out in the wild and is used, any change now should
> >>>>>> require a new jira.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> -- Lars
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> ----- Original Message -----
> >>>>>> From: Andrew Purtell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >>>>>> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
+
Stack 2013-08-01, 15:31
+
Lars George 2013-07-29, 13:45