Stack
2011-09-07, 03:42
Gary Helmling
2011-09-07, 16:26
Jean-Daniel Cryans
2011-09-07, 16:41
Stack
2011-09-07, 17:40
Gary Helmling
2011-09-07, 17:49
Gary Helmling
2011-09-07, 18:53
Ma, Ming
2011-09-07, 22:34
Stack
2011-09-07, 23:12
Andrew Purtell
2011-09-08, 05:18
Stack
2011-09-12, 20:37
Ted Yu
2011-09-12, 20:42
Rottinghuis, Joep
2011-09-18, 03:42
Stack
2011-09-18, 19:11
Rottinghuis, Joep
2011-09-20, 01:01
Rottinghuis, Joep
2011-09-20, 03:02
Stack
2011-09-20, 03:22
Rottinghuis, Joep
2011-09-20, 03:24
Stack
2011-09-20, 03:47
Jesse Yates
2011-09-20, 03:53
Stack
2011-09-20, 04:21
Rottinghuis, Joep
2011-09-20, 04:22
Jesse Yates
2011-09-20, 04:25
Stack
2011-09-20, 04:35
-
Branching for 0.92 [WAS -> Re: [DISCUSSION] Accumulo, another BigTable clone, has shown up on Apache Incubator as a proposal]Stack 2011-09-07, 03:42
I'd like to propose branching friday week, the 16th. Hopefully that
will might get folks to focus on these last outstanding issues (of
which there are quite a few).
Thereafter we need to work on stabilization which I'm sure will turn
up at least one bug, maybe two (smile). Stabilization will run for a
good while I'd say and will take some effort all around. Only bug
fixes should go into 0.92 branch (J-D might have to tie me to the
mast).
Should we discuss in a separate whether to pull in security?
St.Ack
On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 6:44 PM, Andrew Purtell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I also agreed at the time to hold off refactoring the build for Maven modules and supporting RPC engine variants. I would still have the same opinion if not for recent events.
>
> How much work remains for 0.92? If more than a few week's worth, then a parallel refactor of the build could happen, with a final merge step.
>
> Best regards,
>
> - Andy
>
> On Tue Sep 6th, 2011 12:02 PM PDT Gary Helmling wrote:
>
>>> Seems like committing it will disrupt the build and src tree layout.
>>> Gary was holding off till we branched but 0.92 branching is taking too
>>> long.
>>>
>>> + Lets branch this friday, or next?
>>> + And or, run a vote on whether we should commit security now before
>>> we branch or after
>>>
>>>
>>
>>This is getting off topic for the current thread, so I'll open a new thread
>>to take a vote on converting trunk back in to maven modules. This is what
>>would be necessary to integrate the various security bits.
>>
>>The last discussion we had on this was on the dev list at the end of
>>May/beginning of June:
>>http://search-hadoop.com/m/iXZmd2aZwBE1
>>
>>I agreed as much as anyone that we should hold off until after branching
>>0.92 in order to avoid the disruption of moving the entire source tree
>>around. So I have been holding off on this on my own discretion and any
>>delay sits mostly with me.
>>
>>Of course, that was three months ago and we still haven't branched. In
>>hindsight, if we were aware how long the 0.92 process would go on, I think
>>the thread might have reached a different conclusion. In any case, I think
>>it warrants another discussion.
>>
>>--gh
>
>
will might get folks to focus on these last outstanding issues (of
which there are quite a few).
Thereafter we need to work on stabilization which I'm sure will turn
up at least one bug, maybe two (smile). Stabilization will run for a
good while I'd say and will take some effort all around. Only bug
fixes should go into 0.92 branch (J-D might have to tie me to the
mast).
Should we discuss in a separate whether to pull in security?
St.Ack
On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 6:44 PM, Andrew Purtell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I also agreed at the time to hold off refactoring the build for Maven modules and supporting RPC engine variants. I would still have the same opinion if not for recent events.
>
> How much work remains for 0.92? If more than a few week's worth, then a parallel refactor of the build could happen, with a final merge step.
>
> Best regards,
>
> - Andy
>
> On Tue Sep 6th, 2011 12:02 PM PDT Gary Helmling wrote:
>
>>> Seems like committing it will disrupt the build and src tree layout.
>>> Gary was holding off till we branched but 0.92 branching is taking too
>>> long.
>>>
>>> + Lets branch this friday, or next?
>>> + And or, run a vote on whether we should commit security now before
>>> we branch or after
>>>
>>>
>>
>>This is getting off topic for the current thread, so I'll open a new thread
>>to take a vote on converting trunk back in to maven modules. This is what
>>would be necessary to integrate the various security bits.
>>
>>The last discussion we had on this was on the dev list at the end of
>>May/beginning of June:
>>http://search-hadoop.com/m/iXZmd2aZwBE1
>>
>>I agreed as much as anyone that we should hold off until after branching
>>0.92 in order to avoid the disruption of moving the entire source tree
>>around. So I have been holding off on this on my own discretion and any
>>delay sits mostly with me.
>>
>>Of course, that was three months ago and we still haven't branched. In
>>hindsight, if we were aware how long the 0.92 process would go on, I think
>>the thread might have reached a different conclusion. In any case, I think
>>it warrants another discussion.
>>
>>--gh
>
>
-
Re: Branching for 0.92 [WAS -> Re: [DISCUSSION] Accumulo, another BigTable clone, has shown up on Apache Incubator as a proposal]Gary Helmling 2011-09-07, 16:26
I was going to start a thread on modularizing pre-0.92, but given that's
there's no actual patch ready, only a JIRA (HBASE-4336), that seems
premature. We can race and see how long it takes to put something together,
then call a vote if it's ready before we've branched.
On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 8:42 PM, Stack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'd like to propose branching friday week, the 16th. Hopefully that
> will might get folks to focus on these last outstanding issues (of
> which there are quite a few).
>
> Thereafter we need to work on stabilization which I'm sure will turn
> up at least one bug, maybe two (smile). Stabilization will run for a
> good while I'd say and will take some effort all around. Only bug
> fixes should go into 0.92 branch (J-D might have to tie me to the
> mast).
>
> Should we discuss in a separate whether to pull in security?
>
> St.Ack
>
>
>
> On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 6:44 PM, Andrew Purtell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> > I also agreed at the time to hold off refactoring the build for Maven
> modules and supporting RPC engine variants. I would still have the same
> opinion if not for recent events.
> >
> > How much work remains for 0.92? If more than a few week's worth, then a
> parallel refactor of the build could happen, with a final merge step.
> >
> > Best regards,
> >
> > - Andy
> >
> > On Tue Sep 6th, 2011 12:02 PM PDT Gary Helmling wrote:
> >
> >>> Seems like committing it will disrupt the build and src tree layout.
> >>> Gary was holding off till we branched but 0.92 branching is taking too
> >>> long.
> >>>
> >>> + Lets branch this friday, or next?
> >>> + And or, run a vote on whether we should commit security now before
> >>> we branch or after
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>This is getting off topic for the current thread, so I'll open a new
> thread
> >>to take a vote on converting trunk back in to maven modules. This is
> what
> >>would be necessary to integrate the various security bits.
> >>
> >>The last discussion we had on this was on the dev list at the end of
> >>May/beginning of June:
> >>http://search-hadoop.com/m/iXZmd2aZwBE1
> >>
> >>I agreed as much as anyone that we should hold off until after branching
> >>0.92 in order to avoid the disruption of moving the entire source tree
> >>around. So I have been holding off on this on my own discretion and any
> >>delay sits mostly with me.
> >>
> >>Of course, that was three months ago and we still haven't branched. In
> >>hindsight, if we were aware how long the 0.92 process would go on, I
> think
> >>the thread might have reached a different conclusion. In any case, I
> think
> >>it warrants another discussion.
> >>
> >>--gh
> >
> >
>
there's no actual patch ready, only a JIRA (HBASE-4336), that seems
premature. We can race and see how long it takes to put something together,
then call a vote if it's ready before we've branched.
On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 8:42 PM, Stack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'd like to propose branching friday week, the 16th. Hopefully that
> will might get folks to focus on these last outstanding issues (of
> which there are quite a few).
>
> Thereafter we need to work on stabilization which I'm sure will turn
> up at least one bug, maybe two (smile). Stabilization will run for a
> good while I'd say and will take some effort all around. Only bug
> fixes should go into 0.92 branch (J-D might have to tie me to the
> mast).
>
> Should we discuss in a separate whether to pull in security?
>
> St.Ack
>
>
>
> On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 6:44 PM, Andrew Purtell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> > I also agreed at the time to hold off refactoring the build for Maven
> modules and supporting RPC engine variants. I would still have the same
> opinion if not for recent events.
> >
> > How much work remains for 0.92? If more than a few week's worth, then a
> parallel refactor of the build could happen, with a final merge step.
> >
> > Best regards,
> >
> > - Andy
> >
> > On Tue Sep 6th, 2011 12:02 PM PDT Gary Helmling wrote:
> >
> >>> Seems like committing it will disrupt the build and src tree layout.
> >>> Gary was holding off till we branched but 0.92 branching is taking too
> >>> long.
> >>>
> >>> + Lets branch this friday, or next?
> >>> + And or, run a vote on whether we should commit security now before
> >>> we branch or after
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>This is getting off topic for the current thread, so I'll open a new
> thread
> >>to take a vote on converting trunk back in to maven modules. This is
> what
> >>would be necessary to integrate the various security bits.
> >>
> >>The last discussion we had on this was on the dev list at the end of
> >>May/beginning of June:
> >>http://search-hadoop.com/m/iXZmd2aZwBE1
> >>
> >>I agreed as much as anyone that we should hold off until after branching
> >>0.92 in order to avoid the disruption of moving the entire source tree
> >>around. So I have been holding off on this on my own discretion and any
> >>delay sits mostly with me.
> >>
> >>Of course, that was three months ago and we still haven't branched. In
> >>hindsight, if we were aware how long the 0.92 process would go on, I
> think
> >>the thread might have reached a different conclusion. In any case, I
> think
> >>it warrants another discussion.
> >>
> >>--gh
> >
> >
>
-
Re: Branching for 0.92 [WAS -> Re: [DISCUSSION] Accumulo, another BigTable clone, has shown up on Apache Incubator as a proposal]Jean-Daniel Cryans 2011-09-07, 16:41
On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 8:42 PM, Stack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'd like to propose branching friday week, the 16th. Hopefully that
> will might get folks to focus on these last outstanding issues (of
> which there are quite a few).
The sooner the better.
>
> Thereafter we need to work on stabilization which I'm sure will turn
> up at least one bug, maybe two (smile). Stabilization will run for a
> good while I'd say and will take some effort all around. Only bug
> fixes should go into 0.92 branch (J-D might have to tie me to the
> mast).
You being the RM is like the fox guarding the henhouse :)
>
> Should we discuss in a separate whether to pull in security?
I think so.
J-D
> I'd like to propose branching friday week, the 16th. Hopefully that
> will might get folks to focus on these last outstanding issues (of
> which there are quite a few).
The sooner the better.
>
> Thereafter we need to work on stabilization which I'm sure will turn
> up at least one bug, maybe two (smile). Stabilization will run for a
> good while I'd say and will take some effort all around. Only bug
> fixes should go into 0.92 branch (J-D might have to tie me to the
> mast).
You being the RM is like the fox guarding the henhouse :)
>
> Should we discuss in a separate whether to pull in security?
I think so.
J-D
-
Re: Branching for 0.92 [WAS -> Re: [DISCUSSION] Accumulo, another BigTable clone, has shown up on Apache Incubator as a proposal]Stack 2011-09-07, 17:40
On Wed, Sep 7, 2011 at 9:26 AM, Gary Helmling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I was going to start a thread on modularizing pre-0.92, but given that's
> there's no actual patch ready, only a JIRA (HBASE-4336), that seems
> premature. We can race and see how long it takes to put something together,
> then call a vote if it's ready before we've branched.
>
Could you do build against hadoop security as a profile (witness the
0.23 and 0.22 profiles)? Then you wouldn't have to move everything
for 0.92... just make sure 0.92 and security work?
St.Ack
> I was going to start a thread on modularizing pre-0.92, but given that's
> there's no actual patch ready, only a JIRA (HBASE-4336), that seems
> premature. We can race and see how long it takes to put something together,
> then call a vote if it's ready before we've branched.
>
Could you do build against hadoop security as a profile (witness the
0.23 and 0.22 profiles)? Then you wouldn't have to move everything
for 0.92... just make sure 0.92 and security work?
St.Ack
-
Re: Branching for 0.92 [WAS -> Re: [DISCUSSION] Accumulo, another BigTable clone, has shown up on Apache Incubator as a proposal]Gary Helmling 2011-09-07, 17:49
The secure RPC engine would still have to be split off into a separate tree,
since there are some classes that derive from the SASL support and token
authentication in secure Hadoop. Can't break compilation of the non-secure
profile. If there's a way to add an extra source tree in a profile, that
could work.
My impression of maven was that it's more "regulated" than that, and that
modules were the blessed way of doing multiple source trees. But I'll try
some experiments. Any additional pointers are appreciated.
On Wed, Sep 7, 2011 at 10:40 AM, Stack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 7, 2011 at 9:26 AM, Gary Helmling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I was going to start a thread on modularizing pre-0.92, but given that's
> > there's no actual patch ready, only a JIRA (HBASE-4336), that seems
> > premature. We can race and see how long it takes to put something
> together,
> > then call a vote if it's ready before we've branched.
> >
>
> Could you do build against hadoop security as a profile (witness the
> 0.23 and 0.22 profiles)? Then you wouldn't have to move everything
> for 0.92... just make sure 0.92 and security work?
> St.Ack
>
since there are some classes that derive from the SASL support and token
authentication in secure Hadoop. Can't break compilation of the non-secure
profile. If there's a way to add an extra source tree in a profile, that
could work.
My impression of maven was that it's more "regulated" than that, and that
modules were the blessed way of doing multiple source trees. But I'll try
some experiments. Any additional pointers are appreciated.
On Wed, Sep 7, 2011 at 10:40 AM, Stack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 7, 2011 at 9:26 AM, Gary Helmling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I was going to start a thread on modularizing pre-0.92, but given that's
> > there's no actual patch ready, only a JIRA (HBASE-4336), that seems
> > premature. We can race and see how long it takes to put something
> together,
> > then call a vote if it's ready before we've branched.
> >
>
> Could you do build against hadoop security as a profile (witness the
> 0.23 and 0.22 profiles)? Then you wouldn't have to move everything
> for 0.92... just make sure 0.92 and security work?
> St.Ack
>
-
Re: Branching for 0.92 [WAS -> Re: [DISCUSSION] Accumulo, another BigTable clone, has shown up on Apache Incubator as a proposal]Gary Helmling 2011-09-07, 18:53
On Wed, Sep 7, 2011 at 10:49 AM, Gary Helmling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The secure RPC engine would still have to be split off into a separate
> tree, since there are some classes that derive from the SASL support and
> token authentication in secure Hadoop. Can't break compilation of the
> non-secure profile. If there's a way to add an extra source tree in a
> profile, that could work.
>
> My impression of maven was that it's more "regulated" than that, and that
> modules were the blessed way of doing multiple source trees. But I'll try
> some experiments. Any additional pointers are appreciated.
>
>
A quick test on the security branch shows that this might actually work,
using a separate profile for security and the codehaus
build-helper-maven-plugin:add-source goal.
This could serve as a baby step towards modules, as I could separate the
submodule structure for security code:
security/
src/main/java/
src/test/java/
etc., without having to move around the current HBase code. This would
still set us up for modularizing when ready by shifting around the HBase
core code into one or more submodules later.
I'll try proving this out more today.
> The secure RPC engine would still have to be split off into a separate
> tree, since there are some classes that derive from the SASL support and
> token authentication in secure Hadoop. Can't break compilation of the
> non-secure profile. If there's a way to add an extra source tree in a
> profile, that could work.
>
> My impression of maven was that it's more "regulated" than that, and that
> modules were the blessed way of doing multiple source trees. But I'll try
> some experiments. Any additional pointers are appreciated.
>
>
A quick test on the security branch shows that this might actually work,
using a separate profile for security and the codehaus
build-helper-maven-plugin:add-source goal.
This could serve as a baby step towards modules, as I could separate the
submodule structure for security code:
security/
src/main/java/
src/test/java/
etc., without having to move around the current HBase code. This would
still set us up for modularizing when ready by shifting around the HBase
core code into one or more submodules later.
I'll try proving this out more today.
-
RE: Branching for 0.92 [WAS -> Re: [DISCUSSION] Accumulo, another BigTable clone, has shown up on Apache Incubator as a proposal]Ma, Ming 2011-09-07, 22:34
Great to hear we are finally going to cut 0.92 branch!
Is there a summary list of all issues (if the criteria isn't blocker or critical according to JIRA) that have to be fixed before branching can happen, or it is more of a time driven decision, e.g., regardless of what happens we will cut it by 9/16?
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Jean-Daniel Cryans
Sent: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 9:41 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Branching for 0.92 [WAS -> Re: [DISCUSSION] Accumulo, another BigTable clone, has shown up on Apache Incubator as a proposal]
On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 8:42 PM, Stack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'd like to propose branching friday week, the 16th. Hopefully that
> will might get folks to focus on these last outstanding issues (of
> which there are quite a few).
The sooner the better.
>
> Thereafter we need to work on stabilization which I'm sure will turn
> up at least one bug, maybe two (smile). Stabilization will run for a
> good while I'd say and will take some effort all around. Only bug
> fixes should go into 0.92 branch (J-D might have to tie me to the
> mast).
You being the RM is like the fox guarding the henhouse :)
>
> Should we discuss in a separate whether to pull in security?
I think so.
J-D
Is there a summary list of all issues (if the criteria isn't blocker or critical according to JIRA) that have to be fixed before branching can happen, or it is more of a time driven decision, e.g., regardless of what happens we will cut it by 9/16?
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Jean-Daniel Cryans
Sent: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 9:41 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Branching for 0.92 [WAS -> Re: [DISCUSSION] Accumulo, another BigTable clone, has shown up on Apache Incubator as a proposal]
On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 8:42 PM, Stack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'd like to propose branching friday week, the 16th. Hopefully that
> will might get folks to focus on these last outstanding issues (of
> which there are quite a few).
The sooner the better.
>
> Thereafter we need to work on stabilization which I'm sure will turn
> up at least one bug, maybe two (smile). Stabilization will run for a
> good while I'd say and will take some effort all around. Only bug
> fixes should go into 0.92 branch (J-D might have to tie me to the
> mast).
You being the RM is like the fox guarding the henhouse :)
>
> Should we discuss in a separate whether to pull in security?
I think so.
J-D
-
Re: Branching for 0.92 [WAS -> Re: [DISCUSSION] Accumulo, another BigTable clone, has shown up on Apache Incubator as a proposal]Stack 2011-09-07, 23:12
On Wed, Sep 7, 2011 at 3:34 PM, Ma, Ming <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Great to hear we are finally going to cut 0.92 branch!
>
> Is there a summary list of all issues (if the criteria isn't blocker or critical according to JIRA) that have to be fixed before branching can happen, or it is more of a time driven decision, e.g., regardless of what happens we will cut it by 9/16?
>
>
I think we'll cut it even if still issues to fix.
Here is current list:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE/fixforversion/12314223#atl_token=A5KQ-2QAV-T4JA-FDED%7C0ce6f0991a83ab3e0a9b2c621566491abd478ad6%7Clin&selectedTab=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.project%3Aversion-issues-panel
St.Ack
> Great to hear we are finally going to cut 0.92 branch!
>
> Is there a summary list of all issues (if the criteria isn't blocker or critical according to JIRA) that have to be fixed before branching can happen, or it is more of a time driven decision, e.g., regardless of what happens we will cut it by 9/16?
>
>
I think we'll cut it even if still issues to fix.
Here is current list:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE/fixforversion/12314223#atl_token=A5KQ-2QAV-T4JA-FDED%7C0ce6f0991a83ab3e0a9b2c621566491abd478ad6%7Clin&selectedTab=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.project%3Aversion-issues-panel
St.Ack
-
Re: Branching for 0.92 [WAS -> Re: [DISCUSSION] Accumulo, another BigTable clone, has shown up on Apache Incubator as a proposal]Andrew Purtell 2011-09-08, 05:18
Gary, I'll figure out with you how to be helpful re HBASE-4336.
Best regards,
- Andy
Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet Hein (via Tom White)
>________________________________
>From: Gary Helmling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Sent: Thursday, September 8, 2011 1:49 AM
>Subject: Re: Branching for 0.92 [WAS -> Re: [DISCUSSION] Accumulo, another BigTable clone, has shown up on Apache Incubator as a proposal]
>
>The secure RPC engine would still have to be split off into a separate tree,
>since there are some classes that derive from the SASL support and token
>authentication in secure Hadoop. Can't break compilation of the non-secure
>profile. If there's a way to add an extra source tree in a profile, that
>could work.
>
>My impression of maven was that it's more "regulated" than that, and that
>modules were the blessed way of doing multiple source trees. But I'll try
>some experiments. Any additional pointers are appreciated.
>
>
>
>On Wed, Sep 7, 2011 at 10:40 AM, Stack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Sep 7, 2011 at 9:26 AM, Gary Helmling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > I was going to start a thread on modularizing pre-0.92, but given that's
>> > there's no actual patch ready, only a JIRA (HBASE-4336), that seems
>> > premature. We can race and see how long it takes to put something
>> together,
>> > then call a vote if it's ready before we've branched.
>> >
>>
>> Could you do build against hadoop security as a profile (witness the
>> 0.23 and 0.22 profiles)? Then you wouldn't have to move everything
>> for 0.92... just make sure 0.92 and security work?
>> St.Ack
>>
>
>
>
Best regards,
- Andy
Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet Hein (via Tom White)
>________________________________
>From: Gary Helmling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Sent: Thursday, September 8, 2011 1:49 AM
>Subject: Re: Branching for 0.92 [WAS -> Re: [DISCUSSION] Accumulo, another BigTable clone, has shown up on Apache Incubator as a proposal]
>
>The secure RPC engine would still have to be split off into a separate tree,
>since there are some classes that derive from the SASL support and token
>authentication in secure Hadoop. Can't break compilation of the non-secure
>profile. If there's a way to add an extra source tree in a profile, that
>could work.
>
>My impression of maven was that it's more "regulated" than that, and that
>modules were the blessed way of doing multiple source trees. But I'll try
>some experiments. Any additional pointers are appreciated.
>
>
>
>On Wed, Sep 7, 2011 at 10:40 AM, Stack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Sep 7, 2011 at 9:26 AM, Gary Helmling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > I was going to start a thread on modularizing pre-0.92, but given that's
>> > there's no actual patch ready, only a JIRA (HBASE-4336), that seems
>> > premature. We can race and see how long it takes to put something
>> together,
>> > then call a vote if it's ready before we've branched.
>> >
>>
>> Could you do build against hadoop security as a profile (witness the
>> 0.23 and 0.22 profiles)? Then you wouldn't have to move everything
>> for 0.92... just make sure 0.92 and security work?
>> St.Ack
>>
>
>
>
-
Re: Branching for 0.92 [WAS -> Re: [DISCUSSION] Accumulo, another BigTable clone, has shown up on Apache Incubator as a proposal]Stack 2011-09-12, 20:37
I'm still planning on branching this friday, even if all criticals and
blockers are not yet fixed. Friday for sure will mean feature freeze.
Are there any features other than security that we need to get in
before we branch?
St.Ack
On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 8:42 PM, Stack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'd like to propose branching friday week, the 16th. Hopefully that
> will might get folks to focus on these last outstanding issues (of
> which there are quite a few).
>
> Thereafter we need to work on stabilization which I'm sure will turn
> up at least one bug, maybe two (smile). Stabilization will run for a
> good while I'd say and will take some effort all around. Only bug
> fixes should go into 0.92 branch (J-D might have to tie me to the
> mast).
>
> Should we discuss in a separate whether to pull in security?
>
> St.Ack
>
>
>
> On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 6:44 PM, Andrew Purtell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I also agreed at the time to hold off refactoring the build for Maven modules and supporting RPC engine variants. I would still have the same opinion if not for recent events.
>>
>> How much work remains for 0.92? If more than a few week's worth, then a parallel refactor of the build could happen, with a final merge step.
>>
>> Best regards,
>>
>> - Andy
>>
>> On Tue Sep 6th, 2011 12:02 PM PDT Gary Helmling wrote:
>>
>>>> Seems like committing it will disrupt the build and src tree layout.
>>>> Gary was holding off till we branched but 0.92 branching is taking too
>>>> long.
>>>>
>>>> + Lets branch this friday, or next?
>>>> + And or, run a vote on whether we should commit security now before
>>>> we branch or after
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>This is getting off topic for the current thread, so I'll open a new thread
>>>to take a vote on converting trunk back in to maven modules. This is what
>>>would be necessary to integrate the various security bits.
>>>
>>>The last discussion we had on this was on the dev list at the end of
>>>May/beginning of June:
>>>http://search-hadoop.com/m/iXZmd2aZwBE1
>>>
>>>I agreed as much as anyone that we should hold off until after branching
>>>0.92 in order to avoid the disruption of moving the entire source tree
>>>around. So I have been holding off on this on my own discretion and any
>>>delay sits mostly with me.
>>>
>>>Of course, that was three months ago and we still haven't branched. In
>>>hindsight, if we were aware how long the 0.92 process would go on, I think
>>>the thread might have reached a different conclusion. In any case, I think
>>>it warrants another discussion.
>>>
>>>--gh
>>
>>
>
blockers are not yet fixed. Friday for sure will mean feature freeze.
Are there any features other than security that we need to get in
before we branch?
St.Ack
On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 8:42 PM, Stack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'd like to propose branching friday week, the 16th. Hopefully that
> will might get folks to focus on these last outstanding issues (of
> which there are quite a few).
>
> Thereafter we need to work on stabilization which I'm sure will turn
> up at least one bug, maybe two (smile). Stabilization will run for a
> good while I'd say and will take some effort all around. Only bug
> fixes should go into 0.92 branch (J-D might have to tie me to the
> mast).
>
> Should we discuss in a separate whether to pull in security?
>
> St.Ack
>
>
>
> On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 6:44 PM, Andrew Purtell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I also agreed at the time to hold off refactoring the build for Maven modules and supporting RPC engine variants. I would still have the same opinion if not for recent events.
>>
>> How much work remains for 0.92? If more than a few week's worth, then a parallel refactor of the build could happen, with a final merge step.
>>
>> Best regards,
>>
>> - Andy
>>
>> On Tue Sep 6th, 2011 12:02 PM PDT Gary Helmling wrote:
>>
>>>> Seems like committing it will disrupt the build and src tree layout.
>>>> Gary was holding off till we branched but 0.92 branching is taking too
>>>> long.
>>>>
>>>> + Lets branch this friday, or next?
>>>> + And or, run a vote on whether we should commit security now before
>>>> we branch or after
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>This is getting off topic for the current thread, so I'll open a new thread
>>>to take a vote on converting trunk back in to maven modules. This is what
>>>would be necessary to integrate the various security bits.
>>>
>>>The last discussion we had on this was on the dev list at the end of
>>>May/beginning of June:
>>>http://search-hadoop.com/m/iXZmd2aZwBE1
>>>
>>>I agreed as much as anyone that we should hold off until after branching
>>>0.92 in order to avoid the disruption of moving the entire source tree
>>>around. So I have been holding off on this on my own discretion and any
>>>delay sits mostly with me.
>>>
>>>Of course, that was three months ago and we still haven't branched. In
>>>hindsight, if we were aware how long the 0.92 process would go on, I think
>>>the thread might have reached a different conclusion. In any case, I think
>>>it warrants another discussion.
>>>
>>>--gh
>>
>>
>
-
Re: Branching for 0.92 [WAS -> Re: [DISCUSSION] Accumulo, another BigTable clone, has shown up on Apache Incubator as a proposal]Ted Yu 2011-09-12, 20:42
I hope HBASE-4213 can get in before Friday.
On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 1:37 PM, Stack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm still planning on branching this friday, even if all criticals and
> blockers are not yet fixed. Friday for sure will mean feature freeze.
> Are there any features other than security that we need to get in
> before we branch?
>
> St.Ack
>
>
>
> On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 8:42 PM, Stack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I'd like to propose branching friday week, the 16th. Hopefully that
> > will might get folks to focus on these last outstanding issues (of
> > which there are quite a few).
> >
> > Thereafter we need to work on stabilization which I'm sure will turn
> > up at least one bug, maybe two (smile). Stabilization will run for a
> > good while I'd say and will take some effort all around. Only bug
> > fixes should go into 0.92 branch (J-D might have to tie me to the
> > mast).
> >
> > Should we discuss in a separate whether to pull in security?
> >
> > St.Ack
> >
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 6:44 PM, Andrew Purtell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> >> I also agreed at the time to hold off refactoring the build for Maven
> modules and supporting RPC engine variants. I would still have the same
> opinion if not for recent events.
> >>
> >> How much work remains for 0.92? If more than a few week's worth, then a
> parallel refactor of the build could happen, with a final merge step.
> >>
> >> Best regards,
> >>
> >> - Andy
> >>
> >> On Tue Sep 6th, 2011 12:02 PM PDT Gary Helmling wrote:
> >>
> >>>> Seems like committing it will disrupt the build and src tree layout.
> >>>> Gary was holding off till we branched but 0.92 branching is taking too
> >>>> long.
> >>>>
> >>>> + Lets branch this friday, or next?
> >>>> + And or, run a vote on whether we should commit security now before
> >>>> we branch or after
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>This is getting off topic for the current thread, so I'll open a new
> thread
> >>>to take a vote on converting trunk back in to maven modules. This is
> what
> >>>would be necessary to integrate the various security bits.
> >>>
> >>>The last discussion we had on this was on the dev list at the end of
> >>>May/beginning of June:
> >>>http://search-hadoop.com/m/iXZmd2aZwBE1
> >>>
> >>>I agreed as much as anyone that we should hold off until after branching
> >>>0.92 in order to avoid the disruption of moving the entire source tree
> >>>around. So I have been holding off on this on my own discretion and any
> >>>delay sits mostly with me.
> >>>
> >>>Of course, that was three months ago and we still haven't branched. In
> >>>hindsight, if we were aware how long the 0.92 process would go on, I
> think
> >>>the thread might have reached a different conclusion. In any case, I
> think
> >>>it warrants another discussion.
> >>>
> >>>--gh
> >>
> >>
> >
>
On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 1:37 PM, Stack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm still planning on branching this friday, even if all criticals and
> blockers are not yet fixed. Friday for sure will mean feature freeze.
> Are there any features other than security that we need to get in
> before we branch?
>
> St.Ack
>
>
>
> On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 8:42 PM, Stack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I'd like to propose branching friday week, the 16th. Hopefully that
> > will might get folks to focus on these last outstanding issues (of
> > which there are quite a few).
> >
> > Thereafter we need to work on stabilization which I'm sure will turn
> > up at least one bug, maybe two (smile). Stabilization will run for a
> > good while I'd say and will take some effort all around. Only bug
> > fixes should go into 0.92 branch (J-D might have to tie me to the
> > mast).
> >
> > Should we discuss in a separate whether to pull in security?
> >
> > St.Ack
> >
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 6:44 PM, Andrew Purtell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> >> I also agreed at the time to hold off refactoring the build for Maven
> modules and supporting RPC engine variants. I would still have the same
> opinion if not for recent events.
> >>
> >> How much work remains for 0.92? If more than a few week's worth, then a
> parallel refactor of the build could happen, with a final merge step.
> >>
> >> Best regards,
> >>
> >> - Andy
> >>
> >> On Tue Sep 6th, 2011 12:02 PM PDT Gary Helmling wrote:
> >>
> >>>> Seems like committing it will disrupt the build and src tree layout.
> >>>> Gary was holding off till we branched but 0.92 branching is taking too
> >>>> long.
> >>>>
> >>>> + Lets branch this friday, or next?
> >>>> + And or, run a vote on whether we should commit security now before
> >>>> we branch or after
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>This is getting off topic for the current thread, so I'll open a new
> thread
> >>>to take a vote on converting trunk back in to maven modules. This is
> what
> >>>would be necessary to integrate the various security bits.
> >>>
> >>>The last discussion we had on this was on the dev list at the end of
> >>>May/beginning of June:
> >>>http://search-hadoop.com/m/iXZmd2aZwBE1
> >>>
> >>>I agreed as much as anyone that we should hold off until after branching
> >>>0.92 in order to avoid the disruption of moving the entire source tree
> >>>around. So I have been holding off on this on my own discretion and any
> >>>delay sits mostly with me.
> >>>
> >>>Of course, that was three months ago and we still haven't branched. In
> >>>hindsight, if we were aware how long the 0.92 process would go on, I
> think
> >>>the thread might have reached a different conclusion. In any case, I
> think
> >>>it warrants another discussion.
> >>>
> >>>--gh
> >>
> >>
> >
>
-
RE: Branching for 0.92 [WAS -> Re: [DISCUSSION] Accumulo, another BigTable clone, has shown up on Apache Incubator as a proposal]Rottinghuis, Joep 2011-09-18, 03:42
Any update on the 0.92 branch getting cut?
Cheers,
Joep
________________________________________
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Stack [[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, September 06, 2011 8:42 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Branching for 0.92 [WAS -> Re: [DISCUSSION] Accumulo, another BigTable clone, has shown up on Apache Incubator as a proposal]
I'd like to propose branching friday week, the 16th. Hopefully that
will might get folks to focus on these last outstanding issues (of
which there are quite a few).
Thereafter we need to work on stabilization which I'm sure will turn
up at least one bug, maybe two (smile). Stabilization will run for a
good while I'd say and will take some effort all around. Only bug
fixes should go into 0.92 branch (J-D might have to tie me to the
mast).
Should we discuss in a separate whether to pull in security?
St.Ack
On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 6:44 PM, Andrew Purtell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I also agreed at the time to hold off refactoring the build for Maven modules and supporting RPC engine variants. I would still have the same opinion if not for recent events.
>
> How much work remains for 0.92? If more than a few week's worth, then a parallel refactor of the build could happen, with a final merge step.
>
> Best regards,
>
> - Andy
>
> On Tue Sep 6th, 2011 12:02 PM PDT Gary Helmling wrote:
>
>>> Seems like committing it will disrupt the build and src tree layout.
>>> Gary was holding off till we branched but 0.92 branching is taking too
>>> long.
>>>
>>> + Lets branch this friday, or next?
>>> + And or, run a vote on whether we should commit security now before
>>> we branch or after
>>>
>>>
>>
>>This is getting off topic for the current thread, so I'll open a new thread
>>to take a vote on converting trunk back in to maven modules. This is what
>>would be necessary to integrate the various security bits.
>>
>>The last discussion we had on this was on the dev list at the end of
>>May/beginning of June:
>>http://search-hadoop.com/m/iXZmd2aZwBE1
>>
>>I agreed as much as anyone that we should hold off until after branching
>>0.92 in order to avoid the disruption of moving the entire source tree
>>around. So I have been holding off on this on my own discretion and any
>>delay sits mostly with me.
>>
>>Of course, that was three months ago and we still haven't branched. In
>>hindsight, if we were aware how long the 0.92 process would go on, I think
>>the thread might have reached a different conclusion. In any case, I think
>>it warrants another discussion.
>>
>>--gh
>
>
Cheers,
Joep
________________________________________
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Stack [[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, September 06, 2011 8:42 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Branching for 0.92 [WAS -> Re: [DISCUSSION] Accumulo, another BigTable clone, has shown up on Apache Incubator as a proposal]
I'd like to propose branching friday week, the 16th. Hopefully that
will might get folks to focus on these last outstanding issues (of
which there are quite a few).
Thereafter we need to work on stabilization which I'm sure will turn
up at least one bug, maybe two (smile). Stabilization will run for a
good while I'd say and will take some effort all around. Only bug
fixes should go into 0.92 branch (J-D might have to tie me to the
mast).
Should we discuss in a separate whether to pull in security?
St.Ack
On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 6:44 PM, Andrew Purtell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I also agreed at the time to hold off refactoring the build for Maven modules and supporting RPC engine variants. I would still have the same opinion if not for recent events.
>
> How much work remains for 0.92? If more than a few week's worth, then a parallel refactor of the build could happen, with a final merge step.
>
> Best regards,
>
> - Andy
>
> On Tue Sep 6th, 2011 12:02 PM PDT Gary Helmling wrote:
>
>>> Seems like committing it will disrupt the build and src tree layout.
>>> Gary was holding off till we branched but 0.92 branching is taking too
>>> long.
>>>
>>> + Lets branch this friday, or next?
>>> + And or, run a vote on whether we should commit security now before
>>> we branch or after
>>>
>>>
>>
>>This is getting off topic for the current thread, so I'll open a new thread
>>to take a vote on converting trunk back in to maven modules. This is what
>>would be necessary to integrate the various security bits.
>>
>>The last discussion we had on this was on the dev list at the end of
>>May/beginning of June:
>>http://search-hadoop.com/m/iXZmd2aZwBE1
>>
>>I agreed as much as anyone that we should hold off until after branching
>>0.92 in order to avoid the disruption of moving the entire source tree
>>around. So I have been holding off on this on my own discretion and any
>>delay sits mostly with me.
>>
>>Of course, that was three months ago and we still haven't branched. In
>>hindsight, if we were aware how long the 0.92 process would go on, I think
>>the thread might have reached a different conclusion. In any case, I think
>>it warrants another discussion.
>>
>>--gh
>
>
-
Re: Branching for 0.92 [WAS -> Re: [DISCUSSION] Accumulo, another BigTable clone, has shown up on Apache Incubator as a proposal]Stack 2011-09-18, 19:11
I was sort of waiting on a clean build to TRUNK before branching. I
think we should be there in next hour or so. I'll branch this evening
or by tomorrow morning. That OK w/ you Joep?
St.Ack
On Sat, Sep 17, 2011 at 8:42 PM, Rottinghuis, Joep
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Any update on the 0.92 branch getting cut?
>
> Cheers,
>
> Joep
> ________________________________________
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Stack [[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Tuesday, September 06, 2011 8:42 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Branching for 0.92 [WAS -> Re: [DISCUSSION] Accumulo, another BigTable clone, has shown up on Apache Incubator as a proposal]
>
> I'd like to propose branching friday week, the 16th. Hopefully that
> will might get folks to focus on these last outstanding issues (of
> which there are quite a few).
>
> Thereafter we need to work on stabilization which I'm sure will turn
> up at least one bug, maybe two (smile). Stabilization will run for a
> good while I'd say and will take some effort all around. Only bug
> fixes should go into 0.92 branch (J-D might have to tie me to the
> mast).
>
> Should we discuss in a separate whether to pull in security?
>
> St.Ack
>
>
>
> On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 6:44 PM, Andrew Purtell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I also agreed at the time to hold off refactoring the build for Maven modules and supporting RPC engine variants. I would still have the same opinion if not for recent events.
>>
>> How much work remains for 0.92? If more than a few week's worth, then a parallel refactor of the build could happen, with a final merge step.
>>
>> Best regards,
>>
>> - Andy
>>
>> On Tue Sep 6th, 2011 12:02 PM PDT Gary Helmling wrote:
>>
>>>> Seems like committing it will disrupt the build and src tree layout.
>>>> Gary was holding off till we branched but 0.92 branching is taking too
>>>> long.
>>>>
>>>> + Lets branch this friday, or next?
>>>> + And or, run a vote on whether we should commit security now before
>>>> we branch or after
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>This is getting off topic for the current thread, so I'll open a new thread
>>>to take a vote on converting trunk back in to maven modules. This is what
>>>would be necessary to integrate the various security bits.
>>>
>>>The last discussion we had on this was on the dev list at the end of
>>>May/beginning of June:
>>>http://search-hadoop.com/m/iXZmd2aZwBE1
>>>
>>>I agreed as much as anyone that we should hold off until after branching
>>>0.92 in order to avoid the disruption of moving the entire source tree
>>>around. So I have been holding off on this on my own discretion and any
>>>delay sits mostly with me.
>>>
>>>Of course, that was three months ago and we still haven't branched. In
>>>hindsight, if we were aware how long the 0.92 process would go on, I think
>>>the thread might have reached a different conclusion. In any case, I think
>>>it warrants another discussion.
>>>
>>>--gh
>>
>>
think we should be there in next hour or so. I'll branch this evening
or by tomorrow morning. That OK w/ you Joep?
St.Ack
On Sat, Sep 17, 2011 at 8:42 PM, Rottinghuis, Joep
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Any update on the 0.92 branch getting cut?
>
> Cheers,
>
> Joep
> ________________________________________
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Stack [[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Tuesday, September 06, 2011 8:42 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Branching for 0.92 [WAS -> Re: [DISCUSSION] Accumulo, another BigTable clone, has shown up on Apache Incubator as a proposal]
>
> I'd like to propose branching friday week, the 16th. Hopefully that
> will might get folks to focus on these last outstanding issues (of
> which there are quite a few).
>
> Thereafter we need to work on stabilization which I'm sure will turn
> up at least one bug, maybe two (smile). Stabilization will run for a
> good while I'd say and will take some effort all around. Only bug
> fixes should go into 0.92 branch (J-D might have to tie me to the
> mast).
>
> Should we discuss in a separate whether to pull in security?
>
> St.Ack
>
>
>
> On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 6:44 PM, Andrew Purtell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I also agreed at the time to hold off refactoring the build for Maven modules and supporting RPC engine variants. I would still have the same opinion if not for recent events.
>>
>> How much work remains for 0.92? If more than a few week's worth, then a parallel refactor of the build could happen, with a final merge step.
>>
>> Best regards,
>>
>> - Andy
>>
>> On Tue Sep 6th, 2011 12:02 PM PDT Gary Helmling wrote:
>>
>>>> Seems like committing it will disrupt the build and src tree layout.
>>>> Gary was holding off till we branched but 0.92 branching is taking too
>>>> long.
>>>>
>>>> + Lets branch this friday, or next?
>>>> + And or, run a vote on whether we should commit security now before
>>>> we branch or after
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>This is getting off topic for the current thread, so I'll open a new thread
>>>to take a vote on converting trunk back in to maven modules. This is what
>>>would be necessary to integrate the various security bits.
>>>
>>>The last discussion we had on this was on the dev list at the end of
>>>May/beginning of June:
>>>http://search-hadoop.com/m/iXZmd2aZwBE1
>>>
>>>I agreed as much as anyone that we should hold off until after branching
>>>0.92 in order to avoid the disruption of moving the entire source tree
>>>around. So I have been holding off on this on my own discretion and any
>>>delay sits mostly with me.
>>>
>>>Of course, that was three months ago and we still haven't branched. In
>>>hindsight, if we were aware how long the 0.92 process would go on, I think
>>>the thread might have reached a different conclusion. In any case, I think
>>>it warrants another discussion.
>>>
>>>--gh
>>
>>
-
RE: Branching for 0.92 [WAS -> Re: [DISCUSSION] Accumulo, another BigTable clone, has shown up on Apache Incubator as a proposal]Rottinghuis, Joep 2011-09-20, 01:01
Thanks St.Ack!
Joep
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Stack
Sent: Sunday, September 18, 2011 12:12 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Branching for 0.92 [WAS -> Re: [DISCUSSION] Accumulo, another BigTable clone, has shown up on Apache Incubator as a proposal]
I was sort of waiting on a clean build to TRUNK before branching. I think we should be there in next hour or so. I'll branch this evening or by tomorrow morning. That OK w/ you Joep?
St.Ack
On Sat, Sep 17, 2011 at 8:42 PM, Rottinghuis, Joep <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Any update on the 0.92 branch getting cut?
>
> Cheers,
>
> Joep
> ________________________________________
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Stack
> [[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Tuesday, September 06, 2011 8:42 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Branching for 0.92 [WAS -> Re: [DISCUSSION] Accumulo, another
> BigTable clone, has shown up on Apache Incubator as a proposal]
>
> I'd like to propose branching friday week, the 16th. Hopefully that
> will might get folks to focus on these last outstanding issues (of
> which there are quite a few).
>
> Thereafter we need to work on stabilization which I'm sure will turn
> up at least one bug, maybe two (smile). Stabilization will run for a
> good while I'd say and will take some effort all around. Only bug
> fixes should go into 0.92 branch (J-D might have to tie me to the
> mast).
>
> Should we discuss in a separate whether to pull in security?
>
> St.Ack
>
>
>
> On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 6:44 PM, Andrew Purtell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I also agreed at the time to hold off refactoring the build for Maven modules and supporting RPC engine variants. I would still have the same opinion if not for recent events.
>>
>> How much work remains for 0.92? If more than a few week's worth, then a parallel refactor of the build could happen, with a final merge step.
>>
>> Best regards,
>>
>> - Andy
>>
>> On Tue Sep 6th, 2011 12:02 PM PDT Gary Helmling wrote:
>>
>>>> Seems like committing it will disrupt the build and src tree layout.
>>>> Gary was holding off till we branched but 0.92 branching is taking
>>>> too long.
>>>>
>>>> + Lets branch this friday, or next?
>>>> + And or, run a vote on whether we should commit security now
>>>> + before
>>>> we branch or after
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>This is getting off topic for the current thread, so I'll open a new
>>>thread to take a vote on converting trunk back in to maven modules.
>>>This is what would be necessary to integrate the various security bits.
>>>
>>>The last discussion we had on this was on the dev list at the end of
>>>May/beginning of June:
>>>http://search-hadoop.com/m/iXZmd2aZwBE1
>>>
>>>I agreed as much as anyone that we should hold off until after
>>>branching
>>>0.92 in order to avoid the disruption of moving the entire source
>>>tree around. So I have been holding off on this on my own discretion
>>>and any delay sits mostly with me.
>>>
>>>Of course, that was three months ago and we still haven't branched.
>>>In hindsight, if we were aware how long the 0.92 process would go on,
>>>I think the thread might have reached a different conclusion. In any
>>>case, I think it warrants another discussion.
>>>
>>>--gh
>>
>>
Joep
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Stack
Sent: Sunday, September 18, 2011 12:12 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Branching for 0.92 [WAS -> Re: [DISCUSSION] Accumulo, another BigTable clone, has shown up on Apache Incubator as a proposal]
I was sort of waiting on a clean build to TRUNK before branching. I think we should be there in next hour or so. I'll branch this evening or by tomorrow morning. That OK w/ you Joep?
St.Ack
On Sat, Sep 17, 2011 at 8:42 PM, Rottinghuis, Joep <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Any update on the 0.92 branch getting cut?
>
> Cheers,
>
> Joep
> ________________________________________
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Stack
> [[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Tuesday, September 06, 2011 8:42 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Branching for 0.92 [WAS -> Re: [DISCUSSION] Accumulo, another
> BigTable clone, has shown up on Apache Incubator as a proposal]
>
> I'd like to propose branching friday week, the 16th. Hopefully that
> will might get folks to focus on these last outstanding issues (of
> which there are quite a few).
>
> Thereafter we need to work on stabilization which I'm sure will turn
> up at least one bug, maybe two (smile). Stabilization will run for a
> good while I'd say and will take some effort all around. Only bug
> fixes should go into 0.92 branch (J-D might have to tie me to the
> mast).
>
> Should we discuss in a separate whether to pull in security?
>
> St.Ack
>
>
>
> On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 6:44 PM, Andrew Purtell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I also agreed at the time to hold off refactoring the build for Maven modules and supporting RPC engine variants. I would still have the same opinion if not for recent events.
>>
>> How much work remains for 0.92? If more than a few week's worth, then a parallel refactor of the build could happen, with a final merge step.
>>
>> Best regards,
>>
>> - Andy
>>
>> On Tue Sep 6th, 2011 12:02 PM PDT Gary Helmling wrote:
>>
>>>> Seems like committing it will disrupt the build and src tree layout.
>>>> Gary was holding off till we branched but 0.92 branching is taking
>>>> too long.
>>>>
>>>> + Lets branch this friday, or next?
>>>> + And or, run a vote on whether we should commit security now
>>>> + before
>>>> we branch or after
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>This is getting off topic for the current thread, so I'll open a new
>>>thread to take a vote on converting trunk back in to maven modules.
>>>This is what would be necessary to integrate the various security bits.
>>>
>>>The last discussion we had on this was on the dev list at the end of
>>>May/beginning of June:
>>>http://search-hadoop.com/m/iXZmd2aZwBE1
>>>
>>>I agreed as much as anyone that we should hold off until after
>>>branching
>>>0.92 in order to avoid the disruption of moving the entire source
>>>tree around. So I have been holding off on this on my own discretion
>>>and any delay sits mostly with me.
>>>
>>>Of course, that was three months ago and we still haven't branched.
>>>In hindsight, if we were aware how long the 0.92 process would go on,
>>>I think the thread might have reached a different conclusion. In any
>>>case, I think it warrants another discussion.
>>>
>>>--gh
>>
>>
-
RE: Branching for 0.92 [WAS -> Re: [DISCUSSION] Accumulo, another BigTable clone, has shown up on Apache Incubator as a proposal]Rottinghuis, Joep 2011-09-20, 03:02
Michael,
Should the version in the pom on the 0.92 branch point to 0.92.0-SNAPSHOT?
If so I can file a bug and supply patch for same.
Or are you updating that only when you get ready for a release?
Thanks,
Joep
-----Original Message-----
From: Rottinghuis, Joep [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, September 19, 2011 6:02 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Branching for 0.92 [WAS -> Re: [DISCUSSION] Accumulo, another BigTable clone, has shown up on Apache Incubator as a proposal]
Thanks St.Ack!
Joep
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Stack
Sent: Sunday, September 18, 2011 12:12 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Branching for 0.92 [WAS -> Re: [DISCUSSION] Accumulo, another BigTable clone, has shown up on Apache Incubator as a proposal]
I was sort of waiting on a clean build to TRUNK before branching. I think we should be there in next hour or so. I'll branch this evening or by tomorrow morning. That OK w/ you Joep?
St.Ack
On Sat, Sep 17, 2011 at 8:42 PM, Rottinghuis, Joep <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Any update on the 0.92 branch getting cut?
>
> Cheers,
>
> Joep
> ________________________________________
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Stack
> [[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Tuesday, September 06, 2011 8:42 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Branching for 0.92 [WAS -> Re: [DISCUSSION] Accumulo, another
> BigTable clone, has shown up on Apache Incubator as a proposal]
>
> I'd like to propose branching friday week, the 16th. Hopefully that
> will might get folks to focus on these last outstanding issues (of
> which there are quite a few).
>
> Thereafter we need to work on stabilization which I'm sure will turn
> up at least one bug, maybe two (smile). Stabilization will run for a
> good while I'd say and will take some effort all around. Only bug
> fixes should go into 0.92 branch (J-D might have to tie me to the
> mast).
>
> Should we discuss in a separate whether to pull in security?
>
> St.Ack
>
>
>
> On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 6:44 PM, Andrew Purtell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I also agreed at the time to hold off refactoring the build for Maven modules and supporting RPC engine variants. I would still have the same opinion if not for recent events.
>>
>> How much work remains for 0.92? If more than a few week's worth, then a parallel refactor of the build could happen, with a final merge step.
>>
>> Best regards,
>>
>> - Andy
>>
>> On Tue Sep 6th, 2011 12:02 PM PDT Gary Helmling wrote:
>>
>>>> Seems like committing it will disrupt the build and src tree layout.
>>>> Gary was holding off till we branched but 0.92 branching is taking
>>>> too long.
>>>>
>>>> + Lets branch this friday, or next?
>>>> + And or, run a vote on whether we should commit security now
>>>> + before
>>>> we branch or after
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>This is getting off topic for the current thread, so I'll open a new
>>>thread to take a vote on converting trunk back in to maven modules.
>>>This is what would be necessary to integrate the various security bits.
>>>
>>>The last discussion we had on this was on the dev list at the end of
>>>May/beginning of June:
>>>http://search-hadoop.com/m/iXZmd2aZwBE1
>>>
>>>I agreed as much as anyone that we should hold off until after
>>>branching
>>>0.92 in order to avoid the disruption of moving the entire source
>>>tree around. So I have been holding off on this on my own discretion
>>>and any delay sits mostly with me.
>>>
>>>Of course, that was three months ago and we still haven't branched.
>>>In hindsight, if we were aware how long the 0.92 process would go on,
>>>I think the thread might have reached a different conclusion. In any
>>>case, I think it warrants another discussion.
>>>
>>>--gh
>>
>>
Should the version in the pom on the 0.92 branch point to 0.92.0-SNAPSHOT?
If so I can file a bug and supply patch for same.
Or are you updating that only when you get ready for a release?
Thanks,
Joep
-----Original Message-----
From: Rottinghuis, Joep [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, September 19, 2011 6:02 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Branching for 0.92 [WAS -> Re: [DISCUSSION] Accumulo, another BigTable clone, has shown up on Apache Incubator as a proposal]
Thanks St.Ack!
Joep
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Stack
Sent: Sunday, September 18, 2011 12:12 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Branching for 0.92 [WAS -> Re: [DISCUSSION] Accumulo, another BigTable clone, has shown up on Apache Incubator as a proposal]
I was sort of waiting on a clean build to TRUNK before branching. I think we should be there in next hour or so. I'll branch this evening or by tomorrow morning. That OK w/ you Joep?
St.Ack
On Sat, Sep 17, 2011 at 8:42 PM, Rottinghuis, Joep <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Any update on the 0.92 branch getting cut?
>
> Cheers,
>
> Joep
> ________________________________________
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Stack
> [[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Tuesday, September 06, 2011 8:42 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Branching for 0.92 [WAS -> Re: [DISCUSSION] Accumulo, another
> BigTable clone, has shown up on Apache Incubator as a proposal]
>
> I'd like to propose branching friday week, the 16th. Hopefully that
> will might get folks to focus on these last outstanding issues (of
> which there are quite a few).
>
> Thereafter we need to work on stabilization which I'm sure will turn
> up at least one bug, maybe two (smile). Stabilization will run for a
> good while I'd say and will take some effort all around. Only bug
> fixes should go into 0.92 branch (J-D might have to tie me to the
> mast).
>
> Should we discuss in a separate whether to pull in security?
>
> St.Ack
>
>
>
> On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 6:44 PM, Andrew Purtell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I also agreed at the time to hold off refactoring the build for Maven modules and supporting RPC engine variants. I would still have the same opinion if not for recent events.
>>
>> How much work remains for 0.92? If more than a few week's worth, then a parallel refactor of the build could happen, with a final merge step.
>>
>> Best regards,
>>
>> - Andy
>>
>> On Tue Sep 6th, 2011 12:02 PM PDT Gary Helmling wrote:
>>
>>>> Seems like committing it will disrupt the build and src tree layout.
>>>> Gary was holding off till we branched but 0.92 branching is taking
>>>> too long.
>>>>
>>>> + Lets branch this friday, or next?
>>>> + And or, run a vote on whether we should commit security now
>>>> + before
>>>> we branch or after
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>This is getting off topic for the current thread, so I'll open a new
>>>thread to take a vote on converting trunk back in to maven modules.
>>>This is what would be necessary to integrate the various security bits.
>>>
>>>The last discussion we had on this was on the dev list at the end of
>>>May/beginning of June:
>>>http://search-hadoop.com/m/iXZmd2aZwBE1
>>>
>>>I agreed as much as anyone that we should hold off until after
>>>branching
>>>0.92 in order to avoid the disruption of moving the entire source
>>>tree around. So I have been holding off on this on my own discretion
>>>and any delay sits mostly with me.
>>>
>>>Of course, that was three months ago and we still haven't branched.
>>>In hindsight, if we were aware how long the 0.92 process would go on,
>>>I think the thread might have reached a different conclusion. In any
>>>case, I think it warrants another discussion.
>>>
>>>--gh
>>
>>
-
Re: Branching for 0.92 [WAS -> Re: [DISCUSSION] Accumulo, another BigTable clone, has shown up on Apache Incubator as a proposal]Stack 2011-09-20, 03:22
That makes sense. Let me make the change.
St.Ack
On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 8:02 PM, Rottinghuis, Joep
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Michael,
>
> Should the version in the pom on the 0.92 branch point to 0.92.0-SNAPSHOT?
> If so I can file a bug and supply patch for same.
> Or are you updating that only when you get ready for a release?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Joep
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rottinghuis, Joep [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Monday, September 19, 2011 6:02 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: Branching for 0.92 [WAS -> Re: [DISCUSSION] Accumulo, another BigTable clone, has shown up on Apache Incubator as a proposal]
>
> Thanks St.Ack!
>
> Joep
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Stack
> Sent: Sunday, September 18, 2011 12:12 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Branching for 0.92 [WAS -> Re: [DISCUSSION] Accumulo, another BigTable clone, has shown up on Apache Incubator as a proposal]
>
> I was sort of waiting on a clean build to TRUNK before branching. I think we should be there in next hour or so. I'll branch this evening or by tomorrow morning. That OK w/ you Joep?
>
> St.Ack
>
> On Sat, Sep 17, 2011 at 8:42 PM, Rottinghuis, Joep <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Any update on the 0.92 branch getting cut?
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Joep
>> ________________________________________
>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Stack
>> [[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>> Sent: Tuesday, September 06, 2011 8:42 PM
>> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> Subject: Branching for 0.92 [WAS -> Re: [DISCUSSION] Accumulo, another
>> BigTable clone, has shown up on Apache Incubator as a proposal]
>>
>> I'd like to propose branching friday week, the 16th. Hopefully that
>> will might get folks to focus on these last outstanding issues (of
>> which there are quite a few).
>>
>> Thereafter we need to work on stabilization which I'm sure will turn
>> up at least one bug, maybe two (smile). Stabilization will run for a
>> good while I'd say and will take some effort all around. Only bug
>> fixes should go into 0.92 branch (J-D might have to tie me to the
>> mast).
>>
>> Should we discuss in a separate whether to pull in security?
>>
>> St.Ack
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 6:44 PM, Andrew Purtell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> I also agreed at the time to hold off refactoring the build for Maven modules and supporting RPC engine variants. I would still have the same opinion if not for recent events.
>>>
>>> How much work remains for 0.92? If more than a few week's worth, then a parallel refactor of the build could happen, with a final merge step.
>>>
>>> Best regards,
>>>
>>> - Andy
>>>
>>> On Tue Sep 6th, 2011 12:02 PM PDT Gary Helmling wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Seems like committing it will disrupt the build and src tree layout.
>>>>> Gary was holding off till we branched but 0.92 branching is taking
>>>>> too long.
>>>>>
>>>>> + Lets branch this friday, or next?
>>>>> + And or, run a vote on whether we should commit security now
>>>>> + before
>>>>> we branch or after
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>This is getting off topic for the current thread, so I'll open a new
>>>>thread to take a vote on converting trunk back in to maven modules.
>>>>This is what would be necessary to integrate the various security bits.
>>>>
>>>>The last discussion we had on this was on the dev list at the end of
>>>>May/beginning of June:
>>>>http://search-hadoop.com/m/iXZmd2aZwBE1
>>>>
>>>>I agreed as much as anyone that we should hold off until after
>>>>branching
>>>>0.92 in order to avoid the disruption of moving the entire source
>>>>tree around. So I have been holding off on this on my own discretion
>>>>and any delay sits mostly with me.
>>>>
>>>>Of course, that was three months ago and we still haven't branched.
>>>>In hindsight, if we were aware how long the 0.92 process would go on,
>>>>I think the thread might have reached a different conclusion. In any
>>>>case, I think it warrants another discussion.
St.Ack
On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 8:02 PM, Rottinghuis, Joep
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Michael,
>
> Should the version in the pom on the 0.92 branch point to 0.92.0-SNAPSHOT?
> If so I can file a bug and supply patch for same.
> Or are you updating that only when you get ready for a release?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Joep
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rottinghuis, Joep [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Monday, September 19, 2011 6:02 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: Branching for 0.92 [WAS -> Re: [DISCUSSION] Accumulo, another BigTable clone, has shown up on Apache Incubator as a proposal]
>
> Thanks St.Ack!
>
> Joep
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Stack
> Sent: Sunday, September 18, 2011 12:12 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Branching for 0.92 [WAS -> Re: [DISCUSSION] Accumulo, another BigTable clone, has shown up on Apache Incubator as a proposal]
>
> I was sort of waiting on a clean build to TRUNK before branching. I think we should be there in next hour or so. I'll branch this evening or by tomorrow morning. That OK w/ you Joep?
>
> St.Ack
>
> On Sat, Sep 17, 2011 at 8:42 PM, Rottinghuis, Joep <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Any update on the 0.92 branch getting cut?
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Joep
>> ________________________________________
>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Stack
>> [[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>> Sent: Tuesday, September 06, 2011 8:42 PM
>> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> Subject: Branching for 0.92 [WAS -> Re: [DISCUSSION] Accumulo, another
>> BigTable clone, has shown up on Apache Incubator as a proposal]
>>
>> I'd like to propose branching friday week, the 16th. Hopefully that
>> will might get folks to focus on these last outstanding issues (of
>> which there are quite a few).
>>
>> Thereafter we need to work on stabilization which I'm sure will turn
>> up at least one bug, maybe two (smile). Stabilization will run for a
>> good while I'd say and will take some effort all around. Only bug
>> fixes should go into 0.92 branch (J-D might have to tie me to the
>> mast).
>>
>> Should we discuss in a separate whether to pull in security?
>>
>> St.Ack
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 6:44 PM, Andrew Purtell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> I also agreed at the time to hold off refactoring the build for Maven modules and supporting RPC engine variants. I would still have the same opinion if not for recent events.
>>>
>>> How much work remains for 0.92? If more than a few week's worth, then a parallel refactor of the build could happen, with a final merge step.
>>>
>>> Best regards,
>>>
>>> - Andy
>>>
>>> On Tue Sep 6th, 2011 12:02 PM PDT Gary Helmling wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Seems like committing it will disrupt the build and src tree layout.
>>>>> Gary was holding off till we branched but 0.92 branching is taking
>>>>> too long.
>>>>>
>>>>> + Lets branch this friday, or next?
>>>>> + And or, run a vote on whether we should commit security now
>>>>> + before
>>>>> we branch or after
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>This is getting off topic for the current thread, so I'll open a new
>>>>thread to take a vote on converting trunk back in to maven modules.
>>>>This is what would be necessary to integrate the various security bits.
>>>>
>>>>The last discussion we had on this was on the dev list at the end of
>>>>May/beginning of June:
>>>>http://search-hadoop.com/m/iXZmd2aZwBE1
>>>>
>>>>I agreed as much as anyone that we should hold off until after
>>>>branching
>>>>0.92 in order to avoid the disruption of moving the entire source
>>>>tree around. So I have been holding off on this on my own discretion
>>>>and any delay sits mostly with me.
>>>>
>>>>Of course, that was three months ago and we still haven't branched.
>>>>In hindsight, if we were aware how long the 0.92 process would go on,
>>>>I think the thread might have reached a different conclusion. In any
>>>>case, I think it warrants another discussion.
-
RE: Branching for 0.92 [WAS -> Re: [DISCUSSION] Accumulo, another BigTable clone, has shown up on Apache Incubator as a proposal]Rottinghuis, Joep 2011-09-20, 03:24
Trunk should probably go to get a newer version as well (0.93?)
Can you make the version a property that I can override using -Dhbase.version=0.92-my-own-name?
Thanks,
Joep
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Stack
Sent: Monday, September 19, 2011 8:23 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Branching for 0.92 [WAS -> Re: [DISCUSSION] Accumulo, another BigTable clone, has shown up on Apache Incubator as a proposal]
That makes sense. Let me make the change.
St.Ack
On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 8:02 PM, Rottinghuis, Joep <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Michael,
>
> Should the version in the pom on the 0.92 branch point to 0.92.0-SNAPSHOT?
> If so I can file a bug and supply patch for same.
> Or are you updating that only when you get ready for a release?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Joep
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rottinghuis, Joep [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Monday, September 19, 2011 6:02 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: Branching for 0.92 [WAS -> Re: [DISCUSSION] Accumulo,
> another BigTable clone, has shown up on Apache Incubator as a
> proposal]
>
> Thanks St.Ack!
>
> Joep
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of
> Stack
> Sent: Sunday, September 18, 2011 12:12 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Branching for 0.92 [WAS -> Re: [DISCUSSION] Accumulo,
> another BigTable clone, has shown up on Apache Incubator as a
> proposal]
>
> I was sort of waiting on a clean build to TRUNK before branching. I think we should be there in next hour or so. I'll branch this evening or by tomorrow morning. That OK w/ you Joep?
>
> St.Ack
>
> On Sat, Sep 17, 2011 at 8:42 PM, Rottinghuis, Joep <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Any update on the 0.92 branch getting cut?
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Joep
>> ________________________________________
>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Stack
>> [[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>> Sent: Tuesday, September 06, 2011 8:42 PM
>> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> Subject: Branching for 0.92 [WAS -> Re: [DISCUSSION] Accumulo,
>> another BigTable clone, has shown up on Apache Incubator as a
>> proposal]
>>
>> I'd like to propose branching friday week, the 16th. Hopefully that
>> will might get folks to focus on these last outstanding issues (of
>> which there are quite a few).
>>
>> Thereafter we need to work on stabilization which I'm sure will turn
>> up at least one bug, maybe two (smile). Stabilization will run for a
>> good while I'd say and will take some effort all around. Only bug
>> fixes should go into 0.92 branch (J-D might have to tie me to the
>> mast).
>>
>> Should we discuss in a separate whether to pull in security?
>>
>> St.Ack
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 6:44 PM, Andrew Purtell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> I also agreed at the time to hold off refactoring the build for Maven modules and supporting RPC engine variants. I would still have the same opinion if not for recent events.
>>>
>>> How much work remains for 0.92? If more than a few week's worth, then a parallel refactor of the build could happen, with a final merge step.
>>>
>>> Best regards,
>>>
>>> - Andy
>>>
>>> On Tue Sep 6th, 2011 12:02 PM PDT Gary Helmling wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Seems like committing it will disrupt the build and src tree layout.
>>>>> Gary was holding off till we branched but 0.92 branching is taking
>>>>> too long.
>>>>>
>>>>> + Lets branch this friday, or next?
>>>>> + And or, run a vote on whether we should commit security now
>>>>> + before
>>>>> we branch or after
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>This is getting off topic for the current thread, so I'll open a new
>>>>thread to take a vote on converting trunk back in to maven modules.
>>>>This is what would be necessary to integrate the various security bits.
>>>>
>>>>The last discussion we had on this was on the dev list at the end of
>>>>May/beginning of June:
>>>>http://search-hadoop.com/m/iXZmd2aZwBE1
Can you make the version a property that I can override using -Dhbase.version=0.92-my-own-name?
Thanks,
Joep
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Stack
Sent: Monday, September 19, 2011 8:23 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Branching for 0.92 [WAS -> Re: [DISCUSSION] Accumulo, another BigTable clone, has shown up on Apache Incubator as a proposal]
That makes sense. Let me make the change.
St.Ack
On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 8:02 PM, Rottinghuis, Joep <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Michael,
>
> Should the version in the pom on the 0.92 branch point to 0.92.0-SNAPSHOT?
> If so I can file a bug and supply patch for same.
> Or are you updating that only when you get ready for a release?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Joep
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rottinghuis, Joep [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Monday, September 19, 2011 6:02 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: Branching for 0.92 [WAS -> Re: [DISCUSSION] Accumulo,
> another BigTable clone, has shown up on Apache Incubator as a
> proposal]
>
> Thanks St.Ack!
>
> Joep
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of
> Stack
> Sent: Sunday, September 18, 2011 12:12 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Branching for 0.92 [WAS -> Re: [DISCUSSION] Accumulo,
> another BigTable clone, has shown up on Apache Incubator as a
> proposal]
>
> I was sort of waiting on a clean build to TRUNK before branching. I think we should be there in next hour or so. I'll branch this evening or by tomorrow morning. That OK w/ you Joep?
>
> St.Ack
>
> On Sat, Sep 17, 2011 at 8:42 PM, Rottinghuis, Joep <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Any update on the 0.92 branch getting cut?
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Joep
>> ________________________________________
>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Stack
>> [[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>> Sent: Tuesday, September 06, 2011 8:42 PM
>> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> Subject: Branching for 0.92 [WAS -> Re: [DISCUSSION] Accumulo,
>> another BigTable clone, has shown up on Apache Incubator as a
>> proposal]
>>
>> I'd like to propose branching friday week, the 16th. Hopefully that
>> will might get folks to focus on these last outstanding issues (of
>> which there are quite a few).
>>
>> Thereafter we need to work on stabilization which I'm sure will turn
>> up at least one bug, maybe two (smile). Stabilization will run for a
>> good while I'd say and will take some effort all around. Only bug
>> fixes should go into 0.92 branch (J-D might have to tie me to the
>> mast).
>>
>> Should we discuss in a separate whether to pull in security?
>>
>> St.Ack
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 6:44 PM, Andrew Purtell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> I also agreed at the time to hold off refactoring the build for Maven modules and supporting RPC engine variants. I would still have the same opinion if not for recent events.
>>>
>>> How much work remains for 0.92? If more than a few week's worth, then a parallel refactor of the build could happen, with a final merge step.
>>>
>>> Best regards,
>>>
>>> - Andy
>>>
>>> On Tue Sep 6th, 2011 12:02 PM PDT Gary Helmling wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Seems like committing it will disrupt the build and src tree layout.
>>>>> Gary was holding off till we branched but 0.92 branching is taking
>>>>> too long.
>>>>>
>>>>> + Lets branch this friday, or next?
>>>>> + And or, run a vote on whether we should commit security now
>>>>> + before
>>>>> we branch or after
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>This is getting off topic for the current thread, so I'll open a new
>>>>thread to take a vote on converting trunk back in to maven modules.
>>>>This is what would be necessary to integrate the various security bits.
>>>>
>>>>The last discussion we had on this was on the dev list at the end of
>>>>May/beginning of June:
>>>>http://search-hadoop.com/m/iXZmd2aZwBE1
-
Re: Branching for 0.92 [WAS -> Re: [DISCUSSION] Accumulo, another BigTable clone, has shown up on Apache Incubator as a proposal]Stack 2011-09-20, 03:47
I changed versions. How would you make hbase.version work? Looks
like you can't set project.version. I could change it to
${hbase.version} but then how to do the default value?
St.Ack
On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 8:24 PM, Rottinghuis, Joep
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Trunk should probably go to get a newer version as well (0.93?)
> Can you make the version a property that I can override using -Dhbase.version=0.92-my-own-name?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Joep
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Stack
> Sent: Monday, September 19, 2011 8:23 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Branching for 0.92 [WAS -> Re: [DISCUSSION] Accumulo, another BigTable clone, has shown up on Apache Incubator as a proposal]
>
> That makes sense. Let me make the change.
> St.Ack
>
> On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 8:02 PM, Rottinghuis, Joep <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Michael,
>>
>> Should the version in the pom on the 0.92 branch point to 0.92.0-SNAPSHOT?
>> If so I can file a bug and supply patch for same.
>> Or are you updating that only when you get ready for a release?
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Joep
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Rottinghuis, Joep [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>> Sent: Monday, September 19, 2011 6:02 PM
>> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> Subject: RE: Branching for 0.92 [WAS -> Re: [DISCUSSION] Accumulo,
>> another BigTable clone, has shown up on Apache Incubator as a
>> proposal]
>>
>> Thanks St.Ack!
>>
>> Joep
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of
>> Stack
>> Sent: Sunday, September 18, 2011 12:12 PM
>> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> Subject: Re: Branching for 0.92 [WAS -> Re: [DISCUSSION] Accumulo,
>> another BigTable clone, has shown up on Apache Incubator as a
>> proposal]
>>
>> I was sort of waiting on a clean build to TRUNK before branching. I think we should be there in next hour or so. I'll branch this evening or by tomorrow morning. That OK w/ you Joep?
>>
>> St.Ack
>>
>> On Sat, Sep 17, 2011 at 8:42 PM, Rottinghuis, Joep <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> Any update on the 0.92 branch getting cut?
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>>
>>> Joep
>>> ________________________________________
>>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Stack
>>> [[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>>> Sent: Tuesday, September 06, 2011 8:42 PM
>>> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>> Subject: Branching for 0.92 [WAS -> Re: [DISCUSSION] Accumulo,
>>> another BigTable clone, has shown up on Apache Incubator as a
>>> proposal]
>>>
>>> I'd like to propose branching friday week, the 16th. Hopefully that
>>> will might get folks to focus on these last outstanding issues (of
>>> which there are quite a few).
>>>
>>> Thereafter we need to work on stabilization which I'm sure will turn
>>> up at least one bug, maybe two (smile). Stabilization will run for a
>>> good while I'd say and will take some effort all around. Only bug
>>> fixes should go into 0.92 branch (J-D might have to tie me to the
>>> mast).
>>>
>>> Should we discuss in a separate whether to pull in security?
>>>
>>> St.Ack
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 6:44 PM, Andrew Purtell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>> I also agreed at the time to hold off refactoring the build for Maven modules and supporting RPC engine variants. I would still have the same opinion if not for recent events.
>>>>
>>>> How much work remains for 0.92? If more than a few week's worth, then a parallel refactor of the build could happen, with a final merge step.
>>>>
>>>> Best regards,
>>>>
>>>> - Andy
>>>>
>>>> On Tue Sep 6th, 2011 12:02 PM PDT Gary Helmling wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> Seems like committing it will disrupt the build and src tree layout.
>>>>>> Gary was holding off till we branched but 0.92 branching is taking
>>>>>> too long.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> + Lets branch this friday, or next?
>>>>>> + And or, run a vote on whether we should commit security now
>>>>>> + before
>>>>>> we branch or after
>>>>>>
>>>>>
like you can't set project.version. I could change it to
${hbase.version} but then how to do the default value?
St.Ack
On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 8:24 PM, Rottinghuis, Joep
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Trunk should probably go to get a newer version as well (0.93?)
> Can you make the version a property that I can override using -Dhbase.version=0.92-my-own-name?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Joep
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Stack
> Sent: Monday, September 19, 2011 8:23 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Branching for 0.92 [WAS -> Re: [DISCUSSION] Accumulo, another BigTable clone, has shown up on Apache Incubator as a proposal]
>
> That makes sense. Let me make the change.
> St.Ack
>
> On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 8:02 PM, Rottinghuis, Joep <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Michael,
>>
>> Should the version in the pom on the 0.92 branch point to 0.92.0-SNAPSHOT?
>> If so I can file a bug and supply patch for same.
>> Or are you updating that only when you get ready for a release?
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Joep
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Rottinghuis, Joep [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>> Sent: Monday, September 19, 2011 6:02 PM
>> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> Subject: RE: Branching for 0.92 [WAS -> Re: [DISCUSSION] Accumulo,
>> another BigTable clone, has shown up on Apache Incubator as a
>> proposal]
>>
>> Thanks St.Ack!
>>
>> Joep
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of
>> Stack
>> Sent: Sunday, September 18, 2011 12:12 PM
>> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> Subject: Re: Branching for 0.92 [WAS -> Re: [DISCUSSION] Accumulo,
>> another BigTable clone, has shown up on Apache Incubator as a
>> proposal]
>>
>> I was sort of waiting on a clean build to TRUNK before branching. I think we should be there in next hour or so. I'll branch this evening or by tomorrow morning. That OK w/ you Joep?
>>
>> St.Ack
>>
>> On Sat, Sep 17, 2011 at 8:42 PM, Rottinghuis, Joep <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> Any update on the 0.92 branch getting cut?
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>>
>>> Joep
>>> ________________________________________
>>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Stack
>>> [[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>>> Sent: Tuesday, September 06, 2011 8:42 PM
>>> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>> Subject: Branching for 0.92 [WAS -> Re: [DISCUSSION] Accumulo,
>>> another BigTable clone, has shown up on Apache Incubator as a
>>> proposal]
>>>
>>> I'd like to propose branching friday week, the 16th. Hopefully that
>>> will might get folks to focus on these last outstanding issues (of
>>> which there are quite a few).
>>>
>>> Thereafter we need to work on stabilization which I'm sure will turn
>>> up at least one bug, maybe two (smile). Stabilization will run for a
>>> good while I'd say and will take some effort all around. Only bug
>>> fixes should go into 0.92 branch (J-D might have to tie me to the
>>> mast).
>>>
>>> Should we discuss in a separate whether to pull in security?
>>>
>>> St.Ack
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 6:44 PM, Andrew Purtell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>> I also agreed at the time to hold off refactoring the build for Maven modules and supporting RPC engine variants. I would still have the same opinion if not for recent events.
>>>>
>>>> How much work remains for 0.92? If more than a few week's worth, then a parallel refactor of the build could happen, with a final merge step.
>>>>
>>>> Best regards,
>>>>
>>>> - Andy
>>>>
>>>> On Tue Sep 6th, 2011 12:02 PM PDT Gary Helmling wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> Seems like committing it will disrupt the build and src tree layout.
>>>>>> Gary was holding off till we branched but 0.92 branching is taking
>>>>>> too long.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> + Lets branch this friday, or next?
>>>>>> + And or, run a vote on whether we should commit security now
>>>>>> + before
>>>>>> we branch or after
>>>>>>
>>>>>
-
Re: Branching for 0.92 [WAS -> Re: [DISCUSSION] Accumulo, another BigTable clone, has shown up on Apache Incubator as a proposal]Jesse Yates 2011-09-20, 03:53
You should be able to pretty easily set in in the pom (under properties),
and then just use in the <version> tag.
That way whenever you want to to bump version numbers, its one easy change.
-Jesse Yates
On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 8:47 PM, Stack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I changed versions. How would you make hbase.version work? Looks
> like you can't set project.version. I could change it to
> ${hbase.version} but then how to do the default value?
> St.Ack
>
> On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 8:24 PM, Rottinghuis, Joep
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Trunk should probably go to get a newer version as well (0.93?)
> > Can you make the version a property that I can override using
> -Dhbase.version=0.92-my-own-name?
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Joep
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of
> Stack
> > Sent: Monday, September 19, 2011 8:23 PM
> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Subject: Re: Branching for 0.92 [WAS -> Re: [DISCUSSION] Accumulo,
> another BigTable clone, has shown up on Apache Incubator as a proposal]
> >
> > That makes sense. Let me make the change.
> > St.Ack
> >
> > On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 8:02 PM, Rottinghuis, Joep <
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> Michael,
> >>
> >> Should the version in the pom on the 0.92 branch point to
> 0.92.0-SNAPSHOT?
> >> If so I can file a bug and supply patch for same.
> >> Or are you updating that only when you get ready for a release?
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >>
> >> Joep
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Rottinghuis, Joep [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> >> Sent: Monday, September 19, 2011 6:02 PM
> >> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >> Subject: RE: Branching for 0.92 [WAS -> Re: [DISCUSSION] Accumulo,
> >> another BigTable clone, has shown up on Apache Incubator as a
> >> proposal]
> >>
> >> Thanks St.Ack!
> >>
> >> Joep
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of
> >> Stack
> >> Sent: Sunday, September 18, 2011 12:12 PM
> >> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >> Subject: Re: Branching for 0.92 [WAS -> Re: [DISCUSSION] Accumulo,
> >> another BigTable clone, has shown up on Apache Incubator as a
> >> proposal]
> >>
> >> I was sort of waiting on a clean build to TRUNK before branching. I
> think we should be there in next hour or so. I'll branch this evening or by
> tomorrow morning. That OK w/ you Joep?
> >>
> >> St.Ack
> >>
> >> On Sat, Sep 17, 2011 at 8:42 PM, Rottinghuis, Joep <
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>> Any update on the 0.92 branch getting cut?
> >>>
> >>> Cheers,
> >>>
> >>> Joep
> >>> ________________________________________
> >>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Stack
> >>> [[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> >>> Sent: Tuesday, September 06, 2011 8:42 PM
> >>> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >>> Subject: Branching for 0.92 [WAS -> Re: [DISCUSSION] Accumulo,
> >>> another BigTable clone, has shown up on Apache Incubator as a
> >>> proposal]
> >>>
> >>> I'd like to propose branching friday week, the 16th. Hopefully that
> >>> will might get folks to focus on these last outstanding issues (of
> >>> which there are quite a few).
> >>>
> >>> Thereafter we need to work on stabilization which I'm sure will turn
> >>> up at least one bug, maybe two (smile). Stabilization will run for a
> >>> good while I'd say and will take some effort all around. Only bug
> >>> fixes should go into 0.92 branch (J-D might have to tie me to the
> >>> mast).
> >>>
> >>> Should we discuss in a separate whether to pull in security?
> >>>
> >>> St.Ack
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 6:44 PM, Andrew Purtell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> >>>> I also agreed at the time to hold off refactoring the build for Maven
> modules and supporting RPC engine variants. I would still have the same
> opinion if not for recent events.
> >>>>
> >>>> How much work remains for 0.92? If more than a few week's worth, then
> a parallel refactor of the build could happen, with a final merge step.
and then just use in the <version> tag.
That way whenever you want to to bump version numbers, its one easy change.
-Jesse Yates
On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 8:47 PM, Stack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I changed versions. How would you make hbase.version work? Looks
> like you can't set project.version. I could change it to
> ${hbase.version} but then how to do the default value?
> St.Ack
>
> On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 8:24 PM, Rottinghuis, Joep
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Trunk should probably go to get a newer version as well (0.93?)
> > Can you make the version a property that I can override using
> -Dhbase.version=0.92-my-own-name?
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Joep
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of
> Stack
> > Sent: Monday, September 19, 2011 8:23 PM
> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Subject: Re: Branching for 0.92 [WAS -> Re: [DISCUSSION] Accumulo,
> another BigTable clone, has shown up on Apache Incubator as a proposal]
> >
> > That makes sense. Let me make the change.
> > St.Ack
> >
> > On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 8:02 PM, Rottinghuis, Joep <
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> Michael,
> >>
> >> Should the version in the pom on the 0.92 branch point to
> 0.92.0-SNAPSHOT?
> >> If so I can file a bug and supply patch for same.
> >> Or are you updating that only when you get ready for a release?
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >>
> >> Joep
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Rottinghuis, Joep [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> >> Sent: Monday, September 19, 2011 6:02 PM
> >> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >> Subject: RE: Branching for 0.92 [WAS -> Re: [DISCUSSION] Accumulo,
> >> another BigTable clone, has shown up on Apache Incubator as a
> >> proposal]
> >>
> >> Thanks St.Ack!
> >>
> >> Joep
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of
> >> Stack
> >> Sent: Sunday, September 18, 2011 12:12 PM
> >> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >> Subject: Re: Branching for 0.92 [WAS -> Re: [DISCUSSION] Accumulo,
> >> another BigTable clone, has shown up on Apache Incubator as a
> >> proposal]
> >>
> >> I was sort of waiting on a clean build to TRUNK before branching. I
> think we should be there in next hour or so. I'll branch this evening or by
> tomorrow morning. That OK w/ you Joep?
> >>
> >> St.Ack
> >>
> >> On Sat, Sep 17, 2011 at 8:42 PM, Rottinghuis, Joep <
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>> Any update on the 0.92 branch getting cut?
> >>>
> >>> Cheers,
> >>>
> >>> Joep
> >>> ________________________________________
> >>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Stack
> >>> [[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> >>> Sent: Tuesday, September 06, 2011 8:42 PM
> >>> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >>> Subject: Branching for 0.92 [WAS -> Re: [DISCUSSION] Accumulo,
> >>> another BigTable clone, has shown up on Apache Incubator as a
> >>> proposal]
> >>>
> >>> I'd like to propose branching friday week, the 16th. Hopefully that
> >>> will might get folks to focus on these last outstanding issues (of
> >>> which there are quite a few).
> >>>
> >>> Thereafter we need to work on stabilization which I'm sure will turn
> >>> up at least one bug, maybe two (smile). Stabilization will run for a
> >>> good while I'd say and will take some effort all around. Only bug
> >>> fixes should go into 0.92 branch (J-D might have to tie me to the
> >>> mast).
> >>>
> >>> Should we discuss in a separate whether to pull in security?
> >>>
> >>> St.Ack
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 6:44 PM, Andrew Purtell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> >>>> I also agreed at the time to hold off refactoring the build for Maven
> modules and supporting RPC engine variants. I would still have the same
> opinion if not for recent events.
> >>>>
> >>>> How much work remains for 0.92? If more than a few week's worth, then
> a parallel refactor of the build could happen, with a final merge step.
-
Re: Branching for 0.92 [WAS -> Re: [DISCUSSION] Accumulo, another BigTable clone, has shown up on Apache Incubator as a proposal]Stack 2011-09-20, 04:21
On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 8:53 PM, Jesse Yates <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> You should be able to pretty easily set in in the pom (under properties),
> and then just use in the <version> tag.
>
Where are the pom properties Jesse?
Thanks,
St.Ack
> That way whenever you want to to bump version numbers, its one easy change.
>
> -Jesse Yates
>
> On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 8:47 PM, Stack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> I changed versions. How would you make hbase.version work? Looks
>> like you can't set project.version. I could change it to
>> ${hbase.version} but then how to do the default value?
>> St.Ack
>>
>> On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 8:24 PM, Rottinghuis, Joep
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > Trunk should probably go to get a newer version as well (0.93?)
>> > Can you make the version a property that I can override using
>> -Dhbase.version=0.92-my-own-name?
>> >
>> > Thanks,
>> >
>> > Joep
>> > -----Original Message-----
>> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of
>> Stack
>> > Sent: Monday, September 19, 2011 8:23 PM
>> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> > Subject: Re: Branching for 0.92 [WAS -> Re: [DISCUSSION] Accumulo,
>> another BigTable clone, has shown up on Apache Incubator as a proposal]
>> >
>> > That makes sense. Let me make the change.
>> > St.Ack
>> >
>> > On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 8:02 PM, Rottinghuis, Joep <
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >> Michael,
>> >>
>> >> Should the version in the pom on the 0.92 branch point to
>> 0.92.0-SNAPSHOT?
>> >> If so I can file a bug and supply patch for same.
>> >> Or are you updating that only when you get ready for a release?
>> >>
>> >> Thanks,
>> >>
>> >> Joep
>> >> -----Original Message-----
>> >> From: Rottinghuis, Joep [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>> >> Sent: Monday, September 19, 2011 6:02 PM
>> >> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> >> Subject: RE: Branching for 0.92 [WAS -> Re: [DISCUSSION] Accumulo,
>> >> another BigTable clone, has shown up on Apache Incubator as a
>> >> proposal]
>> >>
>> >> Thanks St.Ack!
>> >>
>> >> Joep
>> >> -----Original Message-----
>> >> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of
>> >> Stack
>> >> Sent: Sunday, September 18, 2011 12:12 PM
>> >> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> >> Subject: Re: Branching for 0.92 [WAS -> Re: [DISCUSSION] Accumulo,
>> >> another BigTable clone, has shown up on Apache Incubator as a
>> >> proposal]
>> >>
>> >> I was sort of waiting on a clean build to TRUNK before branching. I
>> think we should be there in next hour or so. I'll branch this evening or by
>> tomorrow morning. That OK w/ you Joep?
>> >>
>> >> St.Ack
>> >>
>> >> On Sat, Sep 17, 2011 at 8:42 PM, Rottinghuis, Joep <
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >>> Any update on the 0.92 branch getting cut?
>> >>>
>> >>> Cheers,
>> >>>
>> >>> Joep
>> >>> ________________________________________
>> >>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Stack
>> >>> [[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>> >>> Sent: Tuesday, September 06, 2011 8:42 PM
>> >>> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> >>> Subject: Branching for 0.92 [WAS -> Re: [DISCUSSION] Accumulo,
>> >>> another BigTable clone, has shown up on Apache Incubator as a
>> >>> proposal]
>> >>>
>> >>> I'd like to propose branching friday week, the 16th. Hopefully that
>> >>> will might get folks to focus on these last outstanding issues (of
>> >>> which there are quite a few).
>> >>>
>> >>> Thereafter we need to work on stabilization which I'm sure will turn
>> >>> up at least one bug, maybe two (smile). Stabilization will run for a
>> >>> good while I'd say and will take some effort all around. Only bug
>> >>> fixes should go into 0.92 branch (J-D might have to tie me to the
>> >>> mast).
>> >>>
>> >>> Should we discuss in a separate whether to pull in security?
>> >>>
>> >>> St.Ack
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 6:44 PM, Andrew Purtell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> wrote:
>> >>>> I also agreed at the time to hold off refactoring the build for Maven
> You should be able to pretty easily set in in the pom (under properties),
> and then just use in the <version> tag.
>
Where are the pom properties Jesse?
Thanks,
St.Ack
> That way whenever you want to to bump version numbers, its one easy change.
>
> -Jesse Yates
>
> On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 8:47 PM, Stack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> I changed versions. How would you make hbase.version work? Looks
>> like you can't set project.version. I could change it to
>> ${hbase.version} but then how to do the default value?
>> St.Ack
>>
>> On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 8:24 PM, Rottinghuis, Joep
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > Trunk should probably go to get a newer version as well (0.93?)
>> > Can you make the version a property that I can override using
>> -Dhbase.version=0.92-my-own-name?
>> >
>> > Thanks,
>> >
>> > Joep
>> > -----Original Message-----
>> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of
>> Stack
>> > Sent: Monday, September 19, 2011 8:23 PM
>> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> > Subject: Re: Branching for 0.92 [WAS -> Re: [DISCUSSION] Accumulo,
>> another BigTable clone, has shown up on Apache Incubator as a proposal]
>> >
>> > That makes sense. Let me make the change.
>> > St.Ack
>> >
>> > On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 8:02 PM, Rottinghuis, Joep <
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >> Michael,
>> >>
>> >> Should the version in the pom on the 0.92 branch point to
>> 0.92.0-SNAPSHOT?
>> >> If so I can file a bug and supply patch for same.
>> >> Or are you updating that only when you get ready for a release?
>> >>
>> >> Thanks,
>> >>
>> >> Joep
>> >> -----Original Message-----
>> >> From: Rottinghuis, Joep [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>> >> Sent: Monday, September 19, 2011 6:02 PM
>> >> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> >> Subject: RE: Branching for 0.92 [WAS -> Re: [DISCUSSION] Accumulo,
>> >> another BigTable clone, has shown up on Apache Incubator as a
>> >> proposal]
>> >>
>> >> Thanks St.Ack!
>> >>
>> >> Joep
>> >> -----Original Message-----
>> >> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of
>> >> Stack
>> >> Sent: Sunday, September 18, 2011 12:12 PM
>> >> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> >> Subject: Re: Branching for 0.92 [WAS -> Re: [DISCUSSION] Accumulo,
>> >> another BigTable clone, has shown up on Apache Incubator as a
>> >> proposal]
>> >>
>> >> I was sort of waiting on a clean build to TRUNK before branching. I
>> think we should be there in next hour or so. I'll branch this evening or by
>> tomorrow morning. That OK w/ you Joep?
>> >>
>> >> St.Ack
>> >>
>> >> On Sat, Sep 17, 2011 at 8:42 PM, Rottinghuis, Joep <
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >>> Any update on the 0.92 branch getting cut?
>> >>>
>> >>> Cheers,
>> >>>
>> >>> Joep
>> >>> ________________________________________
>> >>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Stack
>> >>> [[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>> >>> Sent: Tuesday, September 06, 2011 8:42 PM
>> >>> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> >>> Subject: Branching for 0.92 [WAS -> Re: [DISCUSSION] Accumulo,
>> >>> another BigTable clone, has shown up on Apache Incubator as a
>> >>> proposal]
>> >>>
>> >>> I'd like to propose branching friday week, the 16th. Hopefully that
>> >>> will might get folks to focus on these last outstanding issues (of
>> >>> which there are quite a few).
>> >>>
>> >>> Thereafter we need to work on stabilization which I'm sure will turn
>> >>> up at least one bug, maybe two (smile). Stabilization will run for a
>> >>> good while I'd say and will take some effort all around. Only bug
>> >>> fixes should go into 0.92 branch (J-D might have to tie me to the
>> >>> mast).
>> >>>
>> >>> Should we discuss in a separate whether to pull in security?
>> >>>
>> >>> St.Ack
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 6:44 PM, Andrew Purtell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> wrote:
>> >>>> I also agreed at the time to hold off refactoring the build for Maven
-
RE: Branching for 0.92 [WAS -> Re: [DISCUSSION] Accumulo, another BigTable clone, has shown up on Apache Incubator as a proposal]Rottinghuis, Joep 2011-09-20, 04:22
Just filed a jira with patch for this. See HBASE-4447.
Thanks,
Joep
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Stack
Sent: Monday, September 19, 2011 9:21 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Branching for 0.92 [WAS -> Re: [DISCUSSION] Accumulo, another BigTable clone, has shown up on Apache Incubator as a proposal]
On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 8:53 PM, Jesse Yates <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> You should be able to pretty easily set in in the pom (under
> properties), and then just use in the <version> tag.
>
Where are the pom properties Jesse?
Thanks,
St.Ack
> That way whenever you want to to bump version numbers, its one easy change.
>
> -Jesse Yates
>
> On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 8:47 PM, Stack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> I changed versions. How would you make hbase.version work? Looks
>> like you can't set project.version. I could change it to
>> ${hbase.version} but then how to do the default value?
>> St.Ack
>>
>> On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 8:24 PM, Rottinghuis, Joep
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > Trunk should probably go to get a newer version as well (0.93?) Can
>> > you make the version a property that I can override using
>> -Dhbase.version=0.92-my-own-name?
>> >
>> > Thanks,
>> >
>> > Joep
>> > -----Original Message-----
>> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of
>> Stack
>> > Sent: Monday, September 19, 2011 8:23 PM
>> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> > Subject: Re: Branching for 0.92 [WAS -> Re: [DISCUSSION] Accumulo,
>> another BigTable clone, has shown up on Apache Incubator as a
>> proposal]
>> >
>> > That makes sense. Let me make the change.
>> > St.Ack
>> >
>> > On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 8:02 PM, Rottinghuis, Joep <
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >> Michael,
>> >>
>> >> Should the version in the pom on the 0.92 branch point to
>> 0.92.0-SNAPSHOT?
>> >> If so I can file a bug and supply patch for same.
>> >> Or are you updating that only when you get ready for a release?
>> >>
>> >> Thanks,
>> >>
>> >> Joep
>> >> -----Original Message-----
>> >> From: Rottinghuis, Joep [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>> >> Sent: Monday, September 19, 2011 6:02 PM
>> >> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> >> Subject: RE: Branching for 0.92 [WAS -> Re: [DISCUSSION] Accumulo,
>> >> another BigTable clone, has shown up on Apache Incubator as a
>> >> proposal]
>> >>
>> >> Thanks St.Ack!
>> >>
>> >> Joep
>> >> -----Original Message-----
>> >> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf
>> >> Of Stack
>> >> Sent: Sunday, September 18, 2011 12:12 PM
>> >> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> >> Subject: Re: Branching for 0.92 [WAS -> Re: [DISCUSSION] Accumulo,
>> >> another BigTable clone, has shown up on Apache Incubator as a
>> >> proposal]
>> >>
>> >> I was sort of waiting on a clean build to TRUNK before branching.
>> >> I
>> think we should be there in next hour or so. I'll branch this
>> evening or by tomorrow morning. That OK w/ you Joep?
>> >>
>> >> St.Ack
>> >>
>> >> On Sat, Sep 17, 2011 at 8:42 PM, Rottinghuis, Joep <
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >>> Any update on the 0.92 branch getting cut?
>> >>>
>> >>> Cheers,
>> >>>
>> >>> Joep
>> >>> ________________________________________
>> >>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of
>> >>> Stack [[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>> >>> Sent: Tuesday, September 06, 2011 8:42 PM
>> >>> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> >>> Subject: Branching for 0.92 [WAS -> Re: [DISCUSSION] Accumulo,
>> >>> another BigTable clone, has shown up on Apache Incubator as a
>> >>> proposal]
>> >>>
>> >>> I'd like to propose branching friday week, the 16th. Hopefully
>> >>> that will might get folks to focus on these last outstanding
>> >>> issues (of which there are quite a few).
>> >>>
>> >>> Thereafter we need to work on stabilization which I'm sure will
>> >>> turn up at least one bug, maybe two (smile). Stabilization will
>> >>> run for a good while I'd say and will take some effort all
Thanks,
Joep
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Stack
Sent: Monday, September 19, 2011 9:21 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Branching for 0.92 [WAS -> Re: [DISCUSSION] Accumulo, another BigTable clone, has shown up on Apache Incubator as a proposal]
On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 8:53 PM, Jesse Yates <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> You should be able to pretty easily set in in the pom (under
> properties), and then just use in the <version> tag.
>
Where are the pom properties Jesse?
Thanks,
St.Ack
> That way whenever you want to to bump version numbers, its one easy change.
>
> -Jesse Yates
>
> On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 8:47 PM, Stack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> I changed versions. How would you make hbase.version work? Looks
>> like you can't set project.version. I could change it to
>> ${hbase.version} but then how to do the default value?
>> St.Ack
>>
>> On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 8:24 PM, Rottinghuis, Joep
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > Trunk should probably go to get a newer version as well (0.93?) Can
>> > you make the version a property that I can override using
>> -Dhbase.version=0.92-my-own-name?
>> >
>> > Thanks,
>> >
>> > Joep
>> > -----Original Message-----
>> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of
>> Stack
>> > Sent: Monday, September 19, 2011 8:23 PM
>> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> > Subject: Re: Branching for 0.92 [WAS -> Re: [DISCUSSION] Accumulo,
>> another BigTable clone, has shown up on Apache Incubator as a
>> proposal]
>> >
>> > That makes sense. Let me make the change.
>> > St.Ack
>> >
>> > On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 8:02 PM, Rottinghuis, Joep <
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >> Michael,
>> >>
>> >> Should the version in the pom on the 0.92 branch point to
>> 0.92.0-SNAPSHOT?
>> >> If so I can file a bug and supply patch for same.
>> >> Or are you updating that only when you get ready for a release?
>> >>
>> >> Thanks,
>> >>
>> >> Joep
>> >> -----Original Message-----
>> >> From: Rottinghuis, Joep [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>> >> Sent: Monday, September 19, 2011 6:02 PM
>> >> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> >> Subject: RE: Branching for 0.92 [WAS -> Re: [DISCUSSION] Accumulo,
>> >> another BigTable clone, has shown up on Apache Incubator as a
>> >> proposal]
>> >>
>> >> Thanks St.Ack!
>> >>
>> >> Joep
>> >> -----Original Message-----
>> >> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf
>> >> Of Stack
>> >> Sent: Sunday, September 18, 2011 12:12 PM
>> >> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> >> Subject: Re: Branching for 0.92 [WAS -> Re: [DISCUSSION] Accumulo,
>> >> another BigTable clone, has shown up on Apache Incubator as a
>> >> proposal]
>> >>
>> >> I was sort of waiting on a clean build to TRUNK before branching.
>> >> I
>> think we should be there in next hour or so. I'll branch this
>> evening or by tomorrow morning. That OK w/ you Joep?
>> >>
>> >> St.Ack
>> >>
>> >> On Sat, Sep 17, 2011 at 8:42 PM, Rottinghuis, Joep <
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >>> Any update on the 0.92 branch getting cut?
>> >>>
>> >>> Cheers,
>> >>>
>> >>> Joep
>> >>> ________________________________________
>> >>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of
>> >>> Stack [[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>> >>> Sent: Tuesday, September 06, 2011 8:42 PM
>> >>> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> >>> Subject: Branching for 0.92 [WAS -> Re: [DISCUSSION] Accumulo,
>> >>> another BigTable clone, has shown up on Apache Incubator as a
>> >>> proposal]
>> >>>
>> >>> I'd like to propose branching friday week, the 16th. Hopefully
>> >>> that will might get folks to focus on these last outstanding
>> >>> issues (of which there are quite a few).
>> >>>
>> >>> Thereafter we need to work on stabilization which I'm sure will
>> >>> turn up at least one bug, maybe two (smile). Stabilization will
>> >>> run for a good while I'd say and will take some effort all
-
Re: Branching for 0.92 [WAS -> Re: [DISCUSSION] Accumulo, another BigTable clone, has shown up on Apache Incubator as a proposal]Jesse Yates 2011-09-20, 04:25
Yeah, that works too. Generally, I think people go with project.version, but
it doesn't really matter ;)
-Jesse
On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 9:22 PM, Rottinghuis, Joep <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
> Just filed a jira with patch for this. See HBASE-4447.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Joep
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Stack
> Sent: Monday, September 19, 2011 9:21 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Branching for 0.92 [WAS -> Re: [DISCUSSION] Accumulo, another
> BigTable clone, has shown up on Apache Incubator as a proposal]
>
> On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 8:53 PM, Jesse Yates <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> > You should be able to pretty easily set in in the pom (under
> > properties), and then just use in the <version> tag.
> >
>
> Where are the pom properties Jesse?
> Thanks,
> St.Ack
>
> > That way whenever you want to to bump version numbers, its one easy
> change.
> >
> > -Jesse Yates
> >
> > On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 8:47 PM, Stack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >> I changed versions. How would you make hbase.version work? Looks
> >> like you can't set project.version. I could change it to
> >> ${hbase.version} but then how to do the default value?
> >> St.Ack
> >>
> >> On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 8:24 PM, Rottinghuis, Joep
> >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> > Trunk should probably go to get a newer version as well (0.93?) Can
> >> > you make the version a property that I can override using
> >> -Dhbase.version=0.92-my-own-name?
> >> >
> >> > Thanks,
> >> >
> >> > Joep
> >> > -----Original Message-----
> >> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of
> >> Stack
> >> > Sent: Monday, September 19, 2011 8:23 PM
> >> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >> > Subject: Re: Branching for 0.92 [WAS -> Re: [DISCUSSION] Accumulo,
> >> another BigTable clone, has shown up on Apache Incubator as a
> >> proposal]
> >> >
> >> > That makes sense. Let me make the change.
> >> > St.Ack
> >> >
> >> > On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 8:02 PM, Rottinghuis, Joep <
> >> [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> >> Michael,
> >> >>
> >> >> Should the version in the pom on the 0.92 branch point to
> >> 0.92.0-SNAPSHOT?
> >> >> If so I can file a bug and supply patch for same.
> >> >> Or are you updating that only when you get ready for a release?
> >> >>
> >> >> Thanks,
> >> >>
> >> >> Joep
> >> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> >> From: Rottinghuis, Joep [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> >> >> Sent: Monday, September 19, 2011 6:02 PM
> >> >> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >> >> Subject: RE: Branching for 0.92 [WAS -> Re: [DISCUSSION] Accumulo,
> >> >> another BigTable clone, has shown up on Apache Incubator as a
> >> >> proposal]
> >> >>
> >> >> Thanks St.Ack!
> >> >>
> >> >> Joep
> >> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> >> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf
> >> >> Of Stack
> >> >> Sent: Sunday, September 18, 2011 12:12 PM
> >> >> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >> >> Subject: Re: Branching for 0.92 [WAS -> Re: [DISCUSSION] Accumulo,
> >> >> another BigTable clone, has shown up on Apache Incubator as a
> >> >> proposal]
> >> >>
> >> >> I was sort of waiting on a clean build to TRUNK before branching.
> >> >> I
> >> think we should be there in next hour or so. I'll branch this
> >> evening or by tomorrow morning. That OK w/ you Joep?
> >> >>
> >> >> St.Ack
> >> >>
> >> >> On Sat, Sep 17, 2011 at 8:42 PM, Rottinghuis, Joep <
> >> [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> >>> Any update on the 0.92 branch getting cut?
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Cheers,
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Joep
> >> >>> ________________________________________
> >> >>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of
> >> >>> Stack [[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> >> >>> Sent: Tuesday, September 06, 2011 8:42 PM
> >> >>> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >> >>> Subject: Branching for 0.92 [WAS -> Re: [DISCUSSION] Accumulo,
> >> >>> another BigTable clone, has shown up on Apache Incubator as a
> >> >>> proposal]
it doesn't really matter ;)
-Jesse
On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 9:22 PM, Rottinghuis, Joep <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
> Just filed a jira with patch for this. See HBASE-4447.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Joep
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Stack
> Sent: Monday, September 19, 2011 9:21 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Branching for 0.92 [WAS -> Re: [DISCUSSION] Accumulo, another
> BigTable clone, has shown up on Apache Incubator as a proposal]
>
> On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 8:53 PM, Jesse Yates <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> > You should be able to pretty easily set in in the pom (under
> > properties), and then just use in the <version> tag.
> >
>
> Where are the pom properties Jesse?
> Thanks,
> St.Ack
>
> > That way whenever you want to to bump version numbers, its one easy
> change.
> >
> > -Jesse Yates
> >
> > On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 8:47 PM, Stack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >> I changed versions. How would you make hbase.version work? Looks
> >> like you can't set project.version. I could change it to
> >> ${hbase.version} but then how to do the default value?
> >> St.Ack
> >>
> >> On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 8:24 PM, Rottinghuis, Joep
> >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> > Trunk should probably go to get a newer version as well (0.93?) Can
> >> > you make the version a property that I can override using
> >> -Dhbase.version=0.92-my-own-name?
> >> >
> >> > Thanks,
> >> >
> >> > Joep
> >> > -----Original Message-----
> >> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of
> >> Stack
> >> > Sent: Monday, September 19, 2011 8:23 PM
> >> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >> > Subject: Re: Branching for 0.92 [WAS -> Re: [DISCUSSION] Accumulo,
> >> another BigTable clone, has shown up on Apache Incubator as a
> >> proposal]
> >> >
> >> > That makes sense. Let me make the change.
> >> > St.Ack
> >> >
> >> > On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 8:02 PM, Rottinghuis, Joep <
> >> [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> >> Michael,
> >> >>
> >> >> Should the version in the pom on the 0.92 branch point to
> >> 0.92.0-SNAPSHOT?
> >> >> If so I can file a bug and supply patch for same.
> >> >> Or are you updating that only when you get ready for a release?
> >> >>
> >> >> Thanks,
> >> >>
> >> >> Joep
> >> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> >> From: Rottinghuis, Joep [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> >> >> Sent: Monday, September 19, 2011 6:02 PM
> >> >> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >> >> Subject: RE: Branching for 0.92 [WAS -> Re: [DISCUSSION] Accumulo,
> >> >> another BigTable clone, has shown up on Apache Incubator as a
> >> >> proposal]
> >> >>
> >> >> Thanks St.Ack!
> >> >>
> >> >> Joep
> >> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> >> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf
> >> >> Of Stack
> >> >> Sent: Sunday, September 18, 2011 12:12 PM
> >> >> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >> >> Subject: Re: Branching for 0.92 [WAS -> Re: [DISCUSSION] Accumulo,
> >> >> another BigTable clone, has shown up on Apache Incubator as a
> >> >> proposal]
> >> >>
> >> >> I was sort of waiting on a clean build to TRUNK before branching.
> >> >> I
> >> think we should be there in next hour or so. I'll branch this
> >> evening or by tomorrow morning. That OK w/ you Joep?
> >> >>
> >> >> St.Ack
> >> >>
> >> >> On Sat, Sep 17, 2011 at 8:42 PM, Rottinghuis, Joep <
> >> [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> >>> Any update on the 0.92 branch getting cut?
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Cheers,
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Joep
> >> >>> ________________________________________
> >> >>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of
> >> >>> Stack [[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> >> >>> Sent: Tuesday, September 06, 2011 8:42 PM
> >> >>> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >> >>> Subject: Branching for 0.92 [WAS -> Re: [DISCUSSION] Accumulo,
> >> >>> another BigTable clone, has shown up on Apache Incubator as a
> >> >>> proposal]
-
Re: Branching for 0.92 [WAS -> Re: [DISCUSSION] Accumulo, another BigTable clone, has shown up on Apache Incubator as a proposal]Stack 2011-09-20, 04:35
I applied your patch to 0.92 and trunk.
St.Ack
On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 9:22 PM, Rottinghuis, Joep
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Just filed a jira with patch for this. See HBASE-4447.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Joep
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Stack
> Sent: Monday, September 19, 2011 9:21 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Branching for 0.92 [WAS -> Re: [DISCUSSION] Accumulo, another BigTable clone, has shown up on Apache Incubator as a proposal]
>
> On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 8:53 PM, Jesse Yates <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> You should be able to pretty easily set in in the pom (under
>> properties), and then just use in the <version> tag.
>>
>
> Where are the pom properties Jesse?
> Thanks,
> St.Ack
>
>> That way whenever you want to to bump version numbers, its one easy change.
>>
>> -Jesse Yates
>>
>> On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 8:47 PM, Stack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>> I changed versions. How would you make hbase.version work? Looks
>>> like you can't set project.version. I could change it to
>>> ${hbase.version} but then how to do the default value?
>>> St.Ack
>>>
>>> On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 8:24 PM, Rottinghuis, Joep
>>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> > Trunk should probably go to get a newer version as well (0.93?) Can
>>> > you make the version a property that I can override using
>>> -Dhbase.version=0.92-my-own-name?
>>> >
>>> > Thanks,
>>> >
>>> > Joep
>>> > -----Original Message-----
>>> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of
>>> Stack
>>> > Sent: Monday, September 19, 2011 8:23 PM
>>> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>> > Subject: Re: Branching for 0.92 [WAS -> Re: [DISCUSSION] Accumulo,
>>> another BigTable clone, has shown up on Apache Incubator as a
>>> proposal]
>>> >
>>> > That makes sense. Let me make the change.
>>> > St.Ack
>>> >
>>> > On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 8:02 PM, Rottinghuis, Joep <
>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> >> Michael,
>>> >>
>>> >> Should the version in the pom on the 0.92 branch point to
>>> 0.92.0-SNAPSHOT?
>>> >> If so I can file a bug and supply patch for same.
>>> >> Or are you updating that only when you get ready for a release?
>>> >>
>>> >> Thanks,
>>> >>
>>> >> Joep
>>> >> -----Original Message-----
>>> >> From: Rottinghuis, Joep [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>>> >> Sent: Monday, September 19, 2011 6:02 PM
>>> >> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>> >> Subject: RE: Branching for 0.92 [WAS -> Re: [DISCUSSION] Accumulo,
>>> >> another BigTable clone, has shown up on Apache Incubator as a
>>> >> proposal]
>>> >>
>>> >> Thanks St.Ack!
>>> >>
>>> >> Joep
>>> >> -----Original Message-----
>>> >> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf
>>> >> Of Stack
>>> >> Sent: Sunday, September 18, 2011 12:12 PM
>>> >> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>> >> Subject: Re: Branching for 0.92 [WAS -> Re: [DISCUSSION] Accumulo,
>>> >> another BigTable clone, has shown up on Apache Incubator as a
>>> >> proposal]
>>> >>
>>> >> I was sort of waiting on a clean build to TRUNK before branching.
>>> >> I
>>> think we should be there in next hour or so. I'll branch this
>>> evening or by tomorrow morning. That OK w/ you Joep?
>>> >>
>>> >> St.Ack
>>> >>
>>> >> On Sat, Sep 17, 2011 at 8:42 PM, Rottinghuis, Joep <
>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> >>> Any update on the 0.92 branch getting cut?
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Cheers,
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Joep
>>> >>> ________________________________________
>>> >>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of
>>> >>> Stack [[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>>> >>> Sent: Tuesday, September 06, 2011 8:42 PM
>>> >>> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>> >>> Subject: Branching for 0.92 [WAS -> Re: [DISCUSSION] Accumulo,
>>> >>> another BigTable clone, has shown up on Apache Incubator as a
>>> >>> proposal]
>>> >>>
>>> >>> I'd like to propose branching friday week, the 16th. Hopefully
>>> >>> that will might get folks to focus on these last outstanding
>>> >>> issues (of which there are quite a few).
St.Ack
On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 9:22 PM, Rottinghuis, Joep
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Just filed a jira with patch for this. See HBASE-4447.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Joep
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Stack
> Sent: Monday, September 19, 2011 9:21 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Branching for 0.92 [WAS -> Re: [DISCUSSION] Accumulo, another BigTable clone, has shown up on Apache Incubator as a proposal]
>
> On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 8:53 PM, Jesse Yates <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> You should be able to pretty easily set in in the pom (under
>> properties), and then just use in the <version> tag.
>>
>
> Where are the pom properties Jesse?
> Thanks,
> St.Ack
>
>> That way whenever you want to to bump version numbers, its one easy change.
>>
>> -Jesse Yates
>>
>> On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 8:47 PM, Stack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>> I changed versions. How would you make hbase.version work? Looks
>>> like you can't set project.version. I could change it to
>>> ${hbase.version} but then how to do the default value?
>>> St.Ack
>>>
>>> On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 8:24 PM, Rottinghuis, Joep
>>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> > Trunk should probably go to get a newer version as well (0.93?) Can
>>> > you make the version a property that I can override using
>>> -Dhbase.version=0.92-my-own-name?
>>> >
>>> > Thanks,
>>> >
>>> > Joep
>>> > -----Original Message-----
>>> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of
>>> Stack
>>> > Sent: Monday, September 19, 2011 8:23 PM
>>> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>> > Subject: Re: Branching for 0.92 [WAS -> Re: [DISCUSSION] Accumulo,
>>> another BigTable clone, has shown up on Apache Incubator as a
>>> proposal]
>>> >
>>> > That makes sense. Let me make the change.
>>> > St.Ack
>>> >
>>> > On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 8:02 PM, Rottinghuis, Joep <
>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> >> Michael,
>>> >>
>>> >> Should the version in the pom on the 0.92 branch point to
>>> 0.92.0-SNAPSHOT?
>>> >> If so I can file a bug and supply patch for same.
>>> >> Or are you updating that only when you get ready for a release?
>>> >>
>>> >> Thanks,
>>> >>
>>> >> Joep
>>> >> -----Original Message-----
>>> >> From: Rottinghuis, Joep [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>>> >> Sent: Monday, September 19, 2011 6:02 PM
>>> >> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>> >> Subject: RE: Branching for 0.92 [WAS -> Re: [DISCUSSION] Accumulo,
>>> >> another BigTable clone, has shown up on Apache Incubator as a
>>> >> proposal]
>>> >>
>>> >> Thanks St.Ack!
>>> >>
>>> >> Joep
>>> >> -----Original Message-----
>>> >> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf
>>> >> Of Stack
>>> >> Sent: Sunday, September 18, 2011 12:12 PM
>>> >> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>> >> Subject: Re: Branching for 0.92 [WAS -> Re: [DISCUSSION] Accumulo,
>>> >> another BigTable clone, has shown up on Apache Incubator as a
>>> >> proposal]
>>> >>
>>> >> I was sort of waiting on a clean build to TRUNK before branching.
>>> >> I
>>> think we should be there in next hour or so. I'll branch this
>>> evening or by tomorrow morning. That OK w/ you Joep?
>>> >>
>>> >> St.Ack
>>> >>
>>> >> On Sat, Sep 17, 2011 at 8:42 PM, Rottinghuis, Joep <
>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> >>> Any update on the 0.92 branch getting cut?
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Cheers,
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Joep
>>> >>> ________________________________________
>>> >>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of
>>> >>> Stack [[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>>> >>> Sent: Tuesday, September 06, 2011 8:42 PM
>>> >>> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>> >>> Subject: Branching for 0.92 [WAS -> Re: [DISCUSSION] Accumulo,
>>> >>> another BigTable clone, has shown up on Apache Incubator as a
>>> >>> proposal]
>>> >>>
>>> >>> I'd like to propose branching friday week, the 16th. Hopefully
>>> >>> that will might get folks to focus on these last outstanding
>>> >>> issues (of which there are quite a few).
