Hi,

I see two branches for 2.* now: branch-2 and branch-2.0.0-alpha and two sections in CHANGES.txt: 2.0.1-alpha unreleased and 2.0.0-alpha released. It is a little confusing, seems like branch-2.0.0-alpha was a staging branch for the release and can be thrown away.

Anyone committing patches to both branch-2 and branch-2.0.0-alpha? If not, I'll blow away the later and rename the section in CHANGES.txt to branch-2.

Thanks,
+Vinod

Hey Vinod,

fyi I updated CHANGES.txt yesterday to reflect the 2.0.0-alpha release
on trunk and branch-2.

branch-2.0.0-alpha was just the release branch Arun used for
2.0.0-alpha, we'll create a new branch (2.0.1-alpha) for the next
release.

Thanks,
Eli

On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 4:40 PM, Vinod Kumar Vavilapalli
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I see two branches for 2.* now: branch-2 and branch-2.0.0-alpha and two sections in CHANGES.txt: 2.0.1-alpha unreleased and 2.0.0-alpha released. It is a little confusing, seems like branch-2.0.0-alpha was a staging branch for the release and can be thrown away.
>
> Anyone committing patches to both branch-2 and branch-2.0.0-alpha? If not, I'll blow away the later and rename the section in CHANGES.txt to branch-2.
>
> Thanks,
> +Vinod

+1 for blowing away branch-2.0.0-alpha now, we have the release tag if necessary.

thanks,
Arun

On Jun 5, 2012, at 4:40 PM, Vinod Kumar Vavilapalli wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I see two branches for 2.* now: branch-2 and branch-2.0.0-alpha and two sections in CHANGES.txt: 2.0.1-alpha unreleased and 2.0.0-alpha released. It is a little confusing, seems like branch-2.0.0-alpha was a staging branch for the release and can be thrown away.
>
> Anyone committing patches to both branch-2 and branch-2.0.0-alpha? If not, I'll blow away the later and rename the section in CHANGES.txt to branch-2.
>
> Thanks,
> +Vinod

--
Arun C. Murthy
Hortonworks Inc.
http://hortonworks.com/

I checked with Nicholas also who did the only merge into branch-2.0.0-alpha after the release and got a confirmation that I can delete the branch.

Removing the branch now.

Thanks,
+Vinod
On Jun 5, 2012, at 5:45 PM, Arun C Murthy wrote:

> +1 for blowing away branch-2.0.0-alpha now, we have the release tag if necessary.
>
> thanks,
> Arun
>
> On Jun 5, 2012, at 4:40 PM, Vinod Kumar Vavilapalli wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I see two branches for 2.* now: branch-2 and branch-2.0.0-alpha and two sections in CHANGES.txt: 2.0.1-alpha unreleased and 2.0.0-alpha released. It is a little confusing, seems like branch-2.0.0-alpha was a staging branch for the release and can be thrown away.
>>
>> Anyone committing patches to both branch-2 and branch-2.0.0-alpha? If not, I'll blow away the later and rename the section in CHANGES.txt to branch-2.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> +Vinod
>
> --
> Arun C. Murthy
> Hortonworks Inc.
> http://hortonworks.com/
>
>

Hey Vinod,

Out of curiosity, why delete the branch?  Might make spelunking for
svn revs that correspond to a release hard.  If we're deleting old
release branches might as well delete the others (branch-0.23.0,
branch-0.23.0-rc0, branch-0.23.1, branch-0.23.2, etc) as well?

Thanks,
Eli

On Wed, Jun 6, 2012 at 1:52 PM, Vinod Kumar Vavilapalli
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> I checked with Nicholas also who did the only merge into branch-2.0.0-alpha after the release and got a confirmation that I can delete the branch.
>
> Removing the branch now.
>
> Thanks,
> +Vinod
>
>
> On Jun 5, 2012, at 5:45 PM, Arun C Murthy wrote:
>
>> +1 for blowing away branch-2.0.0-alpha now, we have the release tag if necessary.
>>
>> thanks,
>> Arun
>>
>> On Jun 5, 2012, at 4:40 PM, Vinod Kumar Vavilapalli wrote:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I see two branches for 2.* now: branch-2 and branch-2.0.0-alpha and two sections in CHANGES.txt: 2.0.1-alpha unreleased and 2.0.0-alpha released. It is a little confusing, seems like branch-2.0.0-alpha was a staging branch for the release and can be thrown away.
>>>
>>> Anyone committing patches to both branch-2 and branch-2.0.0-alpha? If not, I'll blow away the later and rename the section in CHANGES.txt to branch-2.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> +Vinod
>>
>> --
>> Arun C. Murthy
>> Hortonworks Inc.
>> http://hortonworks.com/
>>
>>
>

On Wed, Jun 6, 2012 at 2:10 PM, Eli Collins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hey Vinod,
>
> Out of curiosity, why delete the branch?  Might make spelunking for
> svn revs that correspond to a release hard.  If we're deleting old
> release branches might as well delete the others (branch-0.23.0,
> branch-0.23.0-rc0, branch-0.23.1, branch-0.23.2, etc) as well?

Oops, shouldn't have listed branch-0.23.2 as 0.23.2 isn't out yet.
>
> Thanks,
> Eli
>
> On Wed, Jun 6, 2012 at 1:52 PM, Vinod Kumar Vavilapalli
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>
>> I checked with Nicholas also who did the only merge into branch-2.0.0-alpha after the release and got a confirmation that I can delete the branch.
>>
>> Removing the branch now.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> +Vinod
>>
>>
>> On Jun 5, 2012, at 5:45 PM, Arun C Murthy wrote:
>>
>>> +1 for blowing away branch-2.0.0-alpha now, we have the release tag if necessary.
>>>
>>> thanks,
>>> Arun
>>>
>>> On Jun 5, 2012, at 4:40 PM, Vinod Kumar Vavilapalli wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> I see two branches for 2.* now: branch-2 and branch-2.0.0-alpha and two sections in CHANGES.txt: 2.0.1-alpha unreleased and 2.0.0-alpha released. It is a little confusing, seems like branch-2.0.0-alpha was a staging branch for the release and can be thrown away.
>>>>
>>>> Anyone committing patches to both branch-2 and branch-2.0.0-alpha? If not, I'll blow away the later and rename the section in CHANGES.txt to branch-2.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> +Vinod
>>>
>>> --
>>> Arun C. Murthy
>>> Hortonworks Inc.
>>> http://hortonworks.com/
>>>
>>>
>>

Not sure when it stopped being so, but we always created release tags for the releases and do away with the staging branches. I find it confusing as to which branches to commit to when we have dead branches lying around.

Regarding 0.23.*, you are right, I was about to send a separate email regarding those too.

Thanks,
+Vinod
On Jun 6, 2012, at 2:10 PM, Eli Collins wrote:

> Hey Vinod,
>
> Out of curiosity, why delete the branch?  Might make spelunking for
> svn revs that correspond to a release hard.  If we're deleting old
> release branches might as well delete the others (branch-0.23.0,
> branch-0.23.0-rc0, branch-0.23.1, branch-0.23.2, etc) as well?
>
> Thanks,
> Eli
>
> On Wed, Jun 6, 2012 at 1:52 PM, Vinod Kumar Vavilapalli
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>
>> I checked with Nicholas also who did the only merge into branch-2.0.0-alpha after the release and got a confirmation that I can delete the branch.
>>
>> Removing the branch now.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> +Vinod
>>
>>
>> On Jun 5, 2012, at 5:45 PM, Arun C Murthy wrote:
>>
>>> +1 for blowing away branch-2.0.0-alpha now, we have the release tag if necessary.
>>>
>>> thanks,
>>> Arun
>>>
>>> On Jun 5, 2012, at 4:40 PM, Vinod Kumar Vavilapalli wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> I see two branches for 2.* now: branch-2 and branch-2.0.0-alpha and two sections in CHANGES.txt: 2.0.1-alpha unreleased and 2.0.0-alpha released. It is a little confusing, seems like branch-2.0.0-alpha was a staging branch for the release and can be thrown away.
>>>>
>>>> Anyone committing patches to both branch-2 and branch-2.0.0-alpha? If not, I'll blow away the later and rename the section in CHANGES.txt to branch-2.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> +Vinod
>>>
>>> --
>>> Arun C. Murthy
>>> Hortonworks Inc.
>>> http://hortonworks.com/
>>>
>>>
>>

Makes sense. Thanks Vinod.

On Wed, Jun 6, 2012 at 2:16 PM, Vinod Kumar Vavilapalli
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Not sure when it stopped being so, but we always created release tags for the releases and do away with the staging branches. I find it confusing as to which branches to commit to when we have dead branches lying around.
>
> Regarding 0.23.*, you are right, I was about to send a separate email regarding those too.
>
> Thanks,
> +Vinod
>
>
> On Jun 6, 2012, at 2:10 PM, Eli Collins wrote:
>
>> Hey Vinod,
>>
>> Out of curiosity, why delete the branch?  Might make spelunking for
>> svn revs that correspond to a release hard.  If we're deleting old
>> release branches might as well delete the others (branch-0.23.0,
>> branch-0.23.0-rc0, branch-0.23.1, branch-0.23.2, etc) as well?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Eli
>>
>> On Wed, Jun 6, 2012 at 1:52 PM, Vinod Kumar Vavilapalli
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> I checked with Nicholas also who did the only merge into branch-2.0.0-alpha after the release and got a confirmation that I can delete the branch.
>>>
>>> Removing the branch now.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> +Vinod
>>>
>>>
>>> On Jun 5, 2012, at 5:45 PM, Arun C Murthy wrote:
>>>
>>>> +1 for blowing away branch-2.0.0-alpha now, we have the release tag if necessary.
>>>>
>>>> thanks,
>>>> Arun
>>>>
>>>> On Jun 5, 2012, at 4:40 PM, Vinod Kumar Vavilapalli wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>
>>>>> I see two branches for 2.* now: branch-2 and branch-2.0.0-alpha and two sections in CHANGES.txt: 2.0.1-alpha unreleased and 2.0.0-alpha released. It is a little confusing, seems like branch-2.0.0-alpha was a staging branch for the release and can be thrown away.
>>>>>
>>>>> Anyone committing patches to both branch-2 and branch-2.0.0-alpha? If not, I'll blow away the later and rename the section in CHANGES.txt to branch-2.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>> +Vinod
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Arun C. Murthy
>>>> Hortonworks Inc.
>>>> http://hortonworks.com/
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>

Done with deletion of the staging branch. Also updated all CHANGES.txt to point to a running branch-2 instead of a release. When we decide to make a release branch, we can separate sections then.

Thanks,
+vinod
On Jun 5, 2012, at 4:40 PM, Vinod Kumar Vavilapalli wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I see two branches for 2.* now: branch-2 and branch-2.0.0-alpha and two sections in CHANGES.txt: 2.0.1-alpha unreleased and 2.0.0-alpha released. It is a little confusing, seems like branch-2.0.0-alpha was a staging branch for the release and can be thrown away.
>
> Anyone committing patches to both branch-2 and branch-2.0.0-alpha? If not, I'll blow away the later and rename the section in CHANGES.txt to branch-2.
>
> Thanks,
> +Vinod