Hi all,

Branch for 0.8-r2 was created on Dec 7, almost four months ago. Between
then and now lots of cool stuff has landed in trunk waiting to be released
and get to users. I think its a good time now to get the ball rolling for
0.9 release.   If this sounds good, I would propose to cut a branch for 0.9
later this week. Then we can focus on stabilizing the branch and subsequent
release from it.  Thoughts?

Thanks,
Ashutosh

I'm +1 on doing an 0.9.0 release, but would also like to suggest that we
put together a list of 0.9.0 blockers before cutting the release branch. In
the past we have frequently underestimated the amount of work required to
get trunk into a releasable state, with the consequence that we up wasting
time doing a lot of backports from trunk to the release branch. It would be
great if we could avoid all of that this time around.

Thanks.

Carl

On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 6:33 PM, Ashutosh Chauhan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> Branch for 0.8-r2 was created on Dec 7, almost four months ago. Between
> then and now lots of cool stuff has landed in trunk waiting to be released
> and get to users. I think its a good time now to get the ball rolling for
> 0.9 release.   If this sounds good, I would propose to cut a branch for 0.9
> later this week. Then we can focus on stabilizing the branch and subsequent
> release from it.  Thoughts?
>
> Thanks,
> Ashutosh
>

Here is a list of jiras which I plan to get in 0.9.

HIVE-2084
HIVE-2822
HIVE-2764
HIVE-538

I will work with authors of these patches to see these can get in. Others,
please feel free to add this list.

Thanks,
Ashutosh

On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 18:39, Carl Steinbach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> I'm +1 on doing an 0.9.0 release, but would also like to suggest that we
> put together a list of 0.9.0 blockers before cutting the release branch. In
> the past we have frequently underestimated the amount of work required to
> get trunk into a releasable state, with the consequence that we up wasting
> time doing a lot of backports from trunk to the release branch. It would be
> great if we could avoid all of that this time around.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Carl
>
> On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 6:33 PM, Ashutosh Chauhan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >wrote:
>
> > Hi all,
> >
> > Branch for 0.8-r2 was created on Dec 7, almost four months ago. Between
> > then and now lots of cool stuff has landed in trunk waiting to be
> released
> > and get to users. I think its a good time now to get the ball rolling for
> > 0.9 release.   If this sounds good, I would propose to cut a branch for
> 0.9
> > later this week. Then we can focus on stabilizing the branch and
> subsequent
> > release from it.  Thoughts?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Ashutosh
> >
>

Would be great to get HIVE-2646 included.

Thanks,
Thomas
On 4/2/12 6:59 PM, "Ashutosh Chauhan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Here is a list of jiras which I plan to get in 0.9.
>
> HIVE-2084
> HIVE-2822
> HIVE-2764
> HIVE-538
>
> I will work with authors of these patches to see these can get in. Others,
> please feel free to add this list.
>
> Thanks,
> Ashutosh
>
> On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 18:39, Carl Steinbach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> I'm +1 on doing an 0.9.0 release, but would also like to suggest that we
>> put together a list of 0.9.0 blockers before cutting the release branch. In
>> the past we have frequently underestimated the amount of work required to
>> get trunk into a releasable state, with the consequence that we up wasting
>> time doing a lot of backports from trunk to the release branch. It would be
>> great if we could avoid all of that this time around.
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>> Carl
>>
>> On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 6:33 PM, Ashutosh Chauhan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> Branch for 0.8-r2 was created on Dec 7, almost four months ago. Between
>>> then and now lots of cool stuff has landed in trunk waiting to be
>> released
>>> and get to users. I think its a good time now to get the ball rolling for
>>> 0.9 release.   If this sounds good, I would propose to cut a branch for
>> 0.9
>>> later this week. Then we can focus on stabilizing the branch and
>> subsequent
>>> release from it.  Thoughts?
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Ashutosh
>>>
>>

Hi All,

Seems like we have an agreement. So, unless someone has other ideas, I will
cut the branch for 0.9 on 4/9. Below is the consolidated list which people
have requested for 0.9, so as and when these gets checked-in trunk, we will
merge it back in 0.9.

2084
2764
538
2646
2777
2585
2883
2926

Thanks,
Ashutosh

On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 19:02, Thomas Weise <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Would be great to get HIVE-2646 included.
>
> Thanks,
> Thomas
>
>
> On 4/2/12 6:59 PM, "Ashutosh Chauhan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Here is a list of jiras which I plan to get in 0.9.
> >
> > HIVE-2084
> > HIVE-2822
> > HIVE-2764
> > HIVE-538
> >
> > I will work with authors of these patches to see these can get in.
> Others,
> > please feel free to add this list.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Ashutosh
> >
> > On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 18:39, Carl Steinbach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >> I'm +1 on doing an 0.9.0 release, but would also like to suggest that we
> >> put together a list of 0.9.0 blockers before cutting the release
> branch. In
> >> the past we have frequently underestimated the amount of work required
> to
> >> get trunk into a releasable state, with the consequence that we up
> wasting
> >> time doing a lot of backports from trunk to the release branch. It
> would be
> >> great if we could avoid all of that this time around.
> >>
> >> Thanks.
> >>
> >> Carl
> >>
> >> On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 6:33 PM, Ashutosh Chauhan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >>> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Hi all,
> >>>
> >>> Branch for 0.8-r2 was created on Dec 7, almost four months ago. Between
> >>> then and now lots of cool stuff has landed in trunk waiting to be
> >> released
> >>> and get to users. I think its a good time now to get the ball rolling
> for
> >>> 0.9 release.   If this sounds good, I would propose to cut a branch for
> >> 0.9
> >>> later this week. Then we can focus on stabilizing the branch and
> >> subsequent
> >>> release from it.  Thoughts?
> >>>
> >>> Thanks,
> >>> Ashutosh
> >>>
> >>
>
>

Would it be possible/feasible to include 2910?

Cheers,

Hugo

Verstuurd vanaf mijn iPhone

Op 6 apr. 2012 om 21:18 heeft Ashutosh Chauhan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> het volgende geschreven:

> Hi All,
>
> Seems like we have an agreement. So, unless someone has other ideas, I will
> cut the branch for 0.9 on 4/9. Below is the consolidated list which people
> have requested for 0.9, so as and when these gets checked-in trunk, we will
> merge it back in 0.9.
>
> 2084
> 2764
> 538
> 2646
> 2777
> 2585
> 2883
> 2926
>
> Thanks,
> Ashutosh
>
> On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 19:02, Thomas Weise <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Would be great to get HIVE-2646 included.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Thomas
>>
>>
>> On 4/2/12 6:59 PM, "Ashutosh Chauhan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>> Here is a list of jiras which I plan to get in 0.9.
>>>
>>> HIVE-2084
>>> HIVE-2822
>>> HIVE-2764
>>> HIVE-538
>>>
>>> I will work with authors of these patches to see these can get in.
>> Others,
>>> please feel free to add this list.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Ashutosh
>>>
>>> On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 18:39, Carl Steinbach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I'm +1 on doing an 0.9.0 release, but would also like to suggest that we
>>>> put together a list of 0.9.0 blockers before cutting the release
>> branch. In
>>>> the past we have frequently underestimated the amount of work required
>> to
>>>> get trunk into a releasable state, with the consequence that we up
>> wasting
>>>> time doing a lot of backports from trunk to the release branch. It
>> would be
>>>> great if we could avoid all of that this time around.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks.
>>>>
>>>> Carl
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 6:33 PM, Ashutosh Chauhan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>>
>>>>> Branch for 0.8-r2 was created on Dec 7, almost four months ago. Between
>>>>> then and now lots of cool stuff has landed in trunk waiting to be
>>>> released
>>>>> and get to users. I think its a good time now to get the ball rolling
>> for
>>>>> 0.9 release.   If this sounds good, I would propose to cut a branch for
>>>> 0.9
>>>>> later this week. Then we can focus on stabilizing the branch and
>>>> subsequent
>>>>> release from it.  Thoughts?
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>> Ashutosh
>>>>>
>>>>
>>
>>

I think we also need to get the RAT report cleaned up. Apache projects
aren't supposed to release while they have files without the Apache
header. I've filed HIVE-2930 to fix all of the issues.

While working on it, I found that one of the files was added by
HIVE-2246. HIVE-2246 was contributed by Sohan Jain, who hasn't filed
an ICLA, and doesn't have the jira box checked for contribution. Does
someone know him and can ask him to state on the jira that he intended
to contribute it? Failing that, I believe he was working at Facebook
at the time, so someone else who is still there can upload the patch
to the jira?

All of this brings up a challenge in that Phabricator and the Apache
review tool upload patches to jira without providing a way to check
the "contribute to Apache" box. Without the checkbox we should only
commit patches from people who have filed ICLAs. Is there a way to add
an option the arc command that will check the box? Even having it
*always* check the box is better than having it not check the box.
(Although it should warn users that it is doing so.)

Thoughts?

-- Owen

As per the plan I am going to create a branch now. Please hold off any
commits till I send an email for "all-clear".

Thanks,
Ashutosh

On Fri, Apr 6, 2012 at 15:00, Owen O'Malley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> I think we also need to get the RAT report cleaned up. Apache projects
> aren't supposed to release while they have files without the Apache
> header. I've filed HIVE-2930 to fix all of the issues.
>
> While working on it, I found that one of the files was added by
> HIVE-2246. HIVE-2246 was contributed by Sohan Jain, who hasn't filed
> an ICLA, and doesn't have the jira box checked for contribution. Does
> someone know him and can ask him to state on the jira that he intended
> to contribute it? Failing that, I believe he was working at Facebook
> at the time, so someone else who is still there can upload the patch
> to the jira?
>
> All of this brings up a challenge in that Phabricator and the Apache
> review tool upload patches to jira without providing a way to check
> the "contribute to Apache" box. Without the checkbox we should only
> commit patches from people who have filed ICLAs. Is there a way to add
> an option the arc command that will check the box? Even having it
> *always* check the box is better than having it not check the box.
> (Although it should warn users that it is doing so.)
>
> Thoughts?
>
> -- Owen
>

All-clear. Trunk is now open for commits.

Since HIVE-2929 have resulted in intermittent test failures. (See,
HIVE-2937), I branched right before HIVE-2929.  Additionally, I merged in
HIVE-2764 in 0.9

I also added version 0.10 on jira, so any commits on trunk now must have
0.10 as "fix version".

Thanks,
Ashutosh

On Mon, Apr 9, 2012 at 17:01, Ashutosh Chauhan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> As per the plan I am going to create a branch now. Please hold off any
> commits till I send an email for "all-clear".
>
> Thanks,
> Ashutosh
>
>
> On Fri, Apr 6, 2012 at 15:00, Owen O'Malley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> I think we also need to get the RAT report cleaned up. Apache projects
>> aren't supposed to release while they have files without the Apache
>> header. I've filed HIVE-2930 to fix all of the issues.
>>
>> While working on it, I found that one of the files was added by
>> HIVE-2246. HIVE-2246 was contributed by Sohan Jain, who hasn't filed
>> an ICLA, and doesn't have the jira box checked for contribution. Does
>> someone know him and can ask him to state on the jira that he intended
>> to contribute it? Failing that, I believe he was working at Facebook
>> at the time, so someone else who is still there can upload the patch
>> to the jira?
>>
>> All of this brings up a challenge in that Phabricator and the Apache
>> review tool upload patches to jira without providing a way to check
>> the "contribute to Apache" box. Without the checkbox we should only
>> commit patches from people who have filed ICLAs. Is there a way to add
>> an option the arc command that will check the box? Even having it
>> *always* check the box is better than having it not check the box.
>> (Although it should warn users that it is doing so.)
>>
>> Thoughts?
>>
>> -- Owen
>>
>
>