Renaming subject since the discussion may be long.

Allow me to quote Todd from another email thread:

bq. I think we should be especially conservative about adding even
non-invasive features to "stable" branches.

Since 0.94 is considered stable, should the above be applicable ?

Thanks

On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 3:31 PM, lars hofhansl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Wait! 0.94 is the current stable release. Did you just re-point the stable
> pointer to 0.92?
> 0.92 is a maintenance release.
>
> Are we telling new users to install 0.92.x or 0.94.x? For sure this should
> be 0.94.x.
>
>
> -- Lars
>
>
>
> ________________________________
>  From: Ted Yu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2012 3:13 PM
> Subject: Re: ANN: The second hbase 0.92.2 release candidate is available
> for download
>
> I wasn't fully aware of the 3 binding vote rule.
>
> I have restored the symlink.
>
> Cheers
>
> On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 3:07 PM, Jean-Daniel Cryans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 1:27 PM, Ted Yu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > J-D:
> > > So far we have 2 +1 (binding) and 2 +1 (non-binding), no -1 on RC1.
> > >
> > > Do you think I can roll this RC as 0.92.2 ?
> >
> > Looks like you already did yesterday?
> >
> > http://apache.cs.utah.edu/hbase/stable/
> >
> > J-D
> >
>

Considering that we tag a "release" as stable, and only one at a time,
how does that quote even relate? To me it's completely orthogonal.

J-D

On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 3:47 PM, Ted Yu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Renaming subject since the discussion may be long.
>
> Allow me to quote Todd from another email thread:
>
> bq. I think we should be especially conservative about adding even
> non-invasive features to "stable" branches.
>
> Since 0.94 is considered stable, should the above be applicable ?
>
> Thanks
>
> On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 3:31 PM, lars hofhansl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Wait! 0.94 is the current stable release. Did you just re-point the stable
>> pointer to 0.92?
>> 0.92 is a maintenance release.
>>
>> Are we telling new users to install 0.92.x or 0.94.x? For sure this should
>> be 0.94.x.
>>
>>
>> -- Lars
>>
>>
>>
>> ________________________________
>>  From: Ted Yu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2012 3:13 PM
>> Subject: Re: ANN: The second hbase 0.92.2 release candidate is available
>> for download
>>
>> I wasn't fully aware of the 3 binding vote rule.
>>
>> I have restored the symlink.
>>
>> Cheers
>>
>> On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 3:07 PM, Jean-Daniel Cryans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> >wrote:
>>
>> > On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 1:27 PM, Ted Yu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > > J-D:
>> > > So far we have 2 +1 (binding) and 2 +1 (non-binding), no -1 on RC1.
>> > >
>> > > Do you think I can roll this RC as 0.92.2 ?
>> >
>> > Looks like you already did yesterday?
>> >
>> > http://apache.cs.utah.edu/hbase/stable/
>> >
>> > J-D
>> >
>>

Let's consider the following scenario in chronological order:
0.92.x is released
0.94.y is released
0.92.x+1 is released

Would the stable symlink point alternately to each of the releases as
they're available ?

Or should we have two symlinks, one for 0.92 branch, one for 0.94 branch ?

Thanks

On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 3:56 PM, Jean-Daniel Cryans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:

> Considering that we tag a "release" as stable, and only one at a time,
> how does that quote even relate? To me it's completely orthogonal.
>
> J-D
>
> On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 3:47 PM, Ted Yu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Renaming subject since the discussion may be long.
> >
> > Allow me to quote Todd from another email thread:
> >
> > bq. I think we should be especially conservative about adding even
> > non-invasive features to "stable" branches.
> >
> > Since 0.94 is considered stable, should the above be applicable ?
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> > On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 3:31 PM, lars hofhansl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> >
> >> Wait! 0.94 is the current stable release. Did you just re-point the
> stable
> >> pointer to 0.92?
> >> 0.92 is a maintenance release.
> >>
> >> Are we telling new users to install 0.92.x or 0.94.x? For sure this
> should
> >> be 0.94.x.
> >>
> >>
> >> -- Lars
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> ________________________________
> >>  From: Ted Yu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >> Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2012 3:13 PM
> >> Subject: Re: ANN: The second hbase 0.92.2 release candidate is available
> >> for download
> >>
> >> I wasn't fully aware of the 3 binding vote rule.
> >>
> >> I have restored the symlink.
> >>
> >> Cheers
> >>
> >> On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 3:07 PM, Jean-Daniel Cryans <
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >> >wrote:
> >>
> >> > On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 1:27 PM, Ted Yu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> > > J-D:
> >> > > So far we have 2 +1 (binding) and 2 +1 (non-binding), no -1 on RC1.
> >> > >
> >> > > Do you think I can roll this RC as 0.92.2 ?
> >> >
> >> > Looks like you already did yesterday?
> >> >
> >> > http://apache.cs.utah.edu/hbase/stable/
> >> >
> >> > J-D
> >> >
> >>
>

On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 4:00 PM, Ted Yu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Let's consider the following scenario in chronological order:
> 0.92.x is released
> 0.94.y is released
> 0.92.x+1 is released
>
> Would the stable symlink point alternately to each of the releases as
> they're available ?

That would really not work and I'm sure you can think of a few reasons
why (like people jumping from 0.94 to 0.92 to 0.94).

>
> Or should we have two symlinks, one for 0.92 branch, one for 0.94 branch ?

Why.

J-D

I think there seem to be two concepts here (as J-D said in his first
email): stable release vs. stable branch.

So how should we interpret this single stable symlink ?

Thanks

On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 4:09 PM, Jean-Daniel Cryans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:

> On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 4:00 PM, Ted Yu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Let's consider the following scenario in chronological order:
> > 0.92.x is released
> > 0.94.y is released
> > 0.92.x+1 is released
> >
> > Would the stable symlink point alternately to each of the releases as
> > they're available ?
>
> That would really not work and I'm sure you can think of a few reasons
> why (like people jumping from 0.94 to 0.92 to 0.94).
>
> >
> > Or should we have two symlinks, one for 0.92 branch, one for 0.94 branch
> ?
>
> Why.
>
> J-D
>

On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 4:30 PM, Ted Yu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I think there seem to be two concepts here (as J-D said in his first
> email): stable release vs. stable branch.
>

Yeah.  You are conflating two applications of 'stable'; the 'stable'
symlink upper under downloads and releases that are from an old branch
and that should not be subject to destabilizing change.

> So how should we interpret this single stable symlink ?
>

Thats the release we as a community think folks should be using.

St.Ack