I propose we branch 1.5.  We are passed the feature freeze for 1.5 and
it would be nice to be able to commit some recent contributions to
trunk.

If no one objects I will create the branch Tuesday morning.

Keith

+1
On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 2:13 PM, Keith Turner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> I propose we branch 1.5.  We are passed the feature freeze for 1.5 and
> it would be nice to be able to commit some recent contributions to
> trunk.
>
> If no one objects I will create the branch Tuesday morning.
>
> Keith
>

I think we should hold off for a few days, perhaps a week or two, just so
we have more time for bug squashing without concerns about merging bug
fixes.
On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 2:13 PM, Keith Turner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> I propose we branch 1.5.  We are passed the feature freeze for 1.5 and
> it would be nice to be able to commit some recent contributions to
> trunk.
>
> If no one objects I will create the branch Tuesday morning.
>
> Keith
>

+1

----- Original Message -----
From: "Keith Turner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2013 2:13:41 PM
Subject: Branching 1.5

I propose we branch 1.5.  We are passed the feature freeze for 1.5 and
it would be nice to be able to commit some recent contributions to
trunk.

If no one objects I will create the branch Tuesday morning.

Keith

On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 2:20 PM, John Vines <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I think we should hold off for a few days, perhaps a week or two, just so
> we have more time for bug squashing without concerns about merging bug
> fixes.

I have also wanted to avoid doing this, I did not want to do until
there was a reason.  It has been 3 or 4 weeks since feature freeze.
While working on the recent patch from Damon I was thinking I would
like to put this in svn when its ready.  But I am not sure if it
should go in 1.5.  Its not a bug fix.  I would like to avoid having
discussions about what to do about every non bug fix.   I am thinking
avoiding these discussions may save us more time than merging.

It should be very easy to automatically merge all changes from 1.5 to
trunk as long as no one make massive changes to trunk.  I can take
point on doing this until we release 1.5.0.  I will make sure all bug
fixes in 1.5 branch end up in trunk.

What do you think?

>
>
> On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 2:13 PM, Keith Turner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> I propose we branch 1.5.  We are passed the feature freeze for 1.5 and
>> it would be nice to be able to commit some recent contributions to
>> trunk.
>>
>> If no one objects I will create the branch Tuesday morning.
>>
>> Keith
>>

I just don't understand the urgency to start adding new features to 1.6. If
there's a standing patch, then we're in great shape for the second we do.
But once we switch the trunk to 1.6, it does flag a lot of transition work
to be done (version numbers, purging deprecated code, etc.)
On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 2:45 PM, Keith Turner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 2:20 PM, John Vines <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I think we should hold off for a few days, perhaps a week or two, just so
> > we have more time for bug squashing without concerns about merging bug
> > fixes.
>
> I have also wanted to avoid doing this, I did not want to do until
> there was a reason.  It has been 3 or 4 weeks since feature freeze.
> While working on the recent patch from Damon I was thinking I would
> like to put this in svn when its ready.  But I am not sure if it
> should go in 1.5.  Its not a bug fix.  I would like to avoid having
> discussions about what to do about every non bug fix.   I am thinking
> avoiding these discussions may save us more time than merging.
>
> It should be very easy to automatically merge all changes from 1.5 to
> trunk as long as no one make massive changes to trunk.  I can take
> point on doing this until we release 1.5.0.  I will make sure all bug
> fixes in 1.5 branch end up in trunk.
>
> What do you think?
>
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 2:13 PM, Keith Turner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >> I propose we branch 1.5.  We are passed the feature freeze for 1.5 and
> >> it would be nice to be able to commit some recent contributions to
> >> trunk.
> >>
> >> If no one objects I will create the branch Tuesday morning.
> >>
> >> Keith
> >>
>

On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 2:53 PM, John Vines <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I just don't understand the urgency to start adding new features to 1.6. If
> there's a standing patch, then we're in great shape for the second we do.
> But once we switch the trunk to 1.6, it does flag a lot of transition work
> to be done (version numbers, purging deprecated code, etc.)

Changing the version numbers will have to be done at some point by
someone.  Its a lot of work for sed, but not much human effort.
Purging deprecated code is something that needs to be considered
before 1.6 is released, not after we branch.

>
>
> On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 2:45 PM, Keith Turner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 2:20 PM, John Vines <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > I think we should hold off for a few days, perhaps a week or two, just so
>> > we have more time for bug squashing without concerns about merging bug
>> > fixes.
>>
>> I have also wanted to avoid doing this, I did not want to do until
>> there was a reason.  It has been 3 or 4 weeks since feature freeze.
>> While working on the recent patch from Damon I was thinking I would
>> like to put this in svn when its ready.  But I am not sure if it
>> should go in 1.5.  Its not a bug fix.  I would like to avoid having
>> discussions about what to do about every non bug fix.   I am thinking
>> avoiding these discussions may save us more time than merging.
>>
>> It should be very easy to automatically merge all changes from 1.5 to
>> trunk as long as no one make massive changes to trunk.  I can take
>> point on doing this until we release 1.5.0.  I will make sure all bug
>> fixes in 1.5 branch end up in trunk.
>>
>> What do you think?
>>
>> >
>> >
>> > On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 2:13 PM, Keith Turner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >
>> >> I propose we branch 1.5.  We are passed the feature freeze for 1.5 and
>> >> it would be nice to be able to commit some recent contributions to
>> >> trunk.
>> >>
>> >> If no one objects I will create the branch Tuesday morning.
>> >>
>> >> Keith
>> >>
>>

On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 2:53 PM, John Vines <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I just don't understand the urgency to start adding new features to 1.6. If
> there's a standing patch, then we're in great shape for the second we do

>From the perspective of a non-committer I think it would be satisfying
to see your patch applied to svn.  I know when I have submitted
patches to other Apache projects it was satisfying to see it comitted.

I think we should encourage contributions and new feature development
at any point in time.
.
> But once we switch the trunk to 1.6, it does flag a lot of transition work
> to be done (version numbers, purging deprecated code, etc.)
>
>
> On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 2:45 PM, Keith Turner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 2:20 PM, John Vines <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > I think we should hold off for a few days, perhaps a week or two, just so
>> > we have more time for bug squashing without concerns about merging bug
>> > fixes.
>>
>> I have also wanted to avoid doing this, I did not want to do until
>> there was a reason.  It has been 3 or 4 weeks since feature freeze.
>> While working on the recent patch from Damon I was thinking I would
>> like to put this in svn when its ready.  But I am not sure if it
>> should go in 1.5.  Its not a bug fix.  I would like to avoid having
>> discussions about what to do about every non bug fix.   I am thinking
>> avoiding these discussions may save us more time than merging.
>>
>> It should be very easy to automatically merge all changes from 1.5 to
>> trunk as long as no one make massive changes to trunk.  I can take
>> point on doing this until we release 1.5.0.  I will make sure all bug
>> fixes in 1.5 branch end up in trunk.
>>
>> What do you think?
>>
>> >
>> >
>> > On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 2:13 PM, Keith Turner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >
>> >> I propose we branch 1.5.  We are passed the feature freeze for 1.5 and
>> >> it would be nice to be able to commit some recent contributions to
>> >> trunk.
>> >>
>> >> If no one objects I will create the branch Tuesday morning.
>> >>
>> >> Keith
>> >>
>>

On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 11:20 AM, John Vines <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> I think we should hold off for a few days, perhaps a week or two, just so
> we have more time for bug squashing without concerns about merging bug
> fixes.
>
>
> On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 2:13 PM, Keith Turner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > I propose we branch 1.5.  We are passed the feature freeze for 1.5 and
> > it would be nice to be able to commit some recent contributions to
> > trunk.
> >
> > If no one objects I will create the branch Tuesday morning.
> >
> > Keith
> >
>

John and Keith hashed out their differences in #accumulo.  A summary of
their proposal is that we branch 1.5 now, but hold off on introducing tree
conflicts in trunk (i.e. moving or renaming files or directories) to make
merging easier until 1.5.1 is released.  Presumably there will be a fair
amount of bug fixes (and thus merging) for an x.x.0 release.

Billie

> John and Keith hashed out their differences in #accumulo.  A summary of
> their proposal is that we branch 1.5 now, but hold off on introducing tree
> conflicts in trunk (i.e. moving or renaming files or directories) to make
> merging easier until 1.5.1 is released.  Presumably there will be a fair
> amount of bug fixes (and thus merging) for an x.x.0 release.

+1 (are we voting?)

+1

So long as bugfixes for 1.5.0 consistently happen in the 1.5 branch, and
get merged to trunk, to keep merges linear (oldest to newest branch), I'm
in favor of branching.
--
Christopher L Tubbs II
http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii
On Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 11:33 AM, David Medinets
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:

> > John and Keith hashed out their differences in #accumulo.  A summary of
> > their proposal is that we branch 1.5 now, but hold off on introducing
> tree
> > conflicts in trunk (i.e. moving or renaming files or directories) to make
> > merging easier until 1.5.1 is released.  Presumably there will be a fair
> > amount of bug fixes (and thus merging) for an x.x.0 release.
>
> +1 (are we voting?)
>

+1, Ditto

On 02/16/2013 12:59 PM, Christopher wrote:
> +1
>
> So long as bugfixes for 1.5.0 consistently happen in the 1.5 branch, and
> get merged to trunk, to keep merges linear (oldest to newest branch), I'm
> in favor of branching.
>
>
> --
> Christopher L Tubbs II
> http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii
>
>
> On Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 11:33 AM, David Medinets
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
>
>>> John and Keith hashed out their differences in #accumulo.  A summary of
>>> their proposal is that we branch 1.5 now, but hold off on introducing
>> tree
>>> conflicts in trunk (i.e. moving or renaming files or directories) to make
>>> merging easier until 1.5.1 is released.  Presumably there will be a fair
>>> amount of bug fixes (and thus merging) for an x.x.0 release.
>>
>> +1 (are we voting?)
>>
>

I created the 1.5 branch.  Please make 1.5 bug fixes there.

Thanks,

Keith

On Sat, Feb 16, 2013 at 12:59 PM, Christopher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> +1
>
> So long as bugfixes for 1.5.0 consistently happen in the 1.5 branch, and
> get merged to trunk, to keep merges linear (oldest to newest branch), I'm
> in favor of branching.
>
>
> --
> Christopher L Tubbs II
> http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii
>
>
> On Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 11:33 AM, David Medinets
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
>
>> > John and Keith hashed out their differences in #accumulo.  A summary of
>> > their proposal is that we branch 1.5 now, but hold off on introducing
>> tree
>> > conflicts in trunk (i.e. moving or renaming files or directories) to make
>> > merging easier until 1.5.1 is released.  Presumably there will be a fair
>> > amount of bug fixes (and thus merging) for an x.x.0 release.
>>
>> +1 (are we voting?)
>>