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

Switch to Plain View
Accumulo, mail # dev - Backporting policy proposal


+
Christopher 2013-06-17, 17:07
+
Billie Rinaldi 2013-06-17, 21:26
+
Dave Marion 2013-06-17, 22:35
+
Christopher 2013-06-18, 00:22
+
Billie Rinaldi 2013-06-18, 13:50
+
John Vines 2013-06-17, 20:02
+
Christopher 2013-06-17, 20:59
+
Christopher 2013-06-17, 21:05
+
Adam Fuchs 2013-06-18, 14:53
+
Christopher 2013-06-18, 17:50
+
Keith Turner 2013-06-18, 16:05
+
Mike Drob 2013-06-18, 20:59
+
Christopher 2013-06-18, 17:55
+
Keith Turner 2013-06-18, 18:21
+
Josh Elser 2013-06-18, 15:05
Copy link to this message
-
Re: Backporting policy proposal
Adam Fuchs 2013-06-18, 15:26
On Jun 18, 2013 11:05 AM, "Josh Elser" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On 6/18/13 10:53 AM, Adam Fuchs wrote:
>>>
>>> >
>>> >2. Back-porting performance improvements to a prior release line that
>>> >is not EOL (end-of-life) is usually okay (subject to normal lazy
>>> >consensus), so long as it does not change user-facing behavior or API.
>>> >It is still strongly preferred to add such fixes in the older branch
>>> >first, and merge forward to the newer one(s).
>>
>> Agree, although doesn't the transition to git alleviate the problems with
>> order of operations?
>>
>
> I don't understand what you mean by "order of operations". If you push a
commit in 1.6.0-SNAPSHOT that should really be in 1.4.4-SNAPSHOT, Git will
not handle this well in terms of an accurate history.

I don't really understand either -- that was mostly speculation. Doesn't
the reliance on hashes of the patch rather than commit IDs make it
immaterial as to which branch a patch was committed to first? Admitedly, I
am not an expert on git.

Adam
+
Josh Elser 2013-06-18, 15:43
+
John Vines 2013-06-18, 15:31
+
Josh Elser 2013-06-17, 23:35