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

Switch to Plain View
HBase >> mail # dev >> [DISCUSS] More new feature backports to 0.94.


+
Jonathan Hsieh 2013-03-01, 16:31
+
lars hofhansl 2013-03-01, 19:00
+
Elliott Clark 2013-03-01, 22:43
+
Jean-Marc Spaggiari 2013-03-01, 23:12
+
Enis Söztutar 2013-03-02, 00:55
+
Jonathan Hsieh 2013-03-01, 23:11
+
lars hofhansl 2013-03-02, 02:10
+
Enis Söztutar 2013-03-02, 02:17
+
Jean-Marc Spaggiari 2013-03-02, 02:25
+
Ted Yu 2013-03-02, 02:24
+
Andrew Purtell 2013-03-03, 13:50
+
Ted 2013-03-03, 14:12
+
Andrew Purtell 2013-03-03, 14:38
+
Jean-Marc Spaggiari 2013-03-04, 13:41
+
Stack 2013-03-04, 21:27
+
Enis Söztutar 2013-03-04, 22:29
Copy link to this message
-
Re: [DISCUSS] More new feature backports to 0.94.
> Let's move the discussions to individual backporting jiras.

+1

On Tuesday, March 5, 2013, Enis Söztutar wrote:

> The general understanding is that we should not have been in this
> condition. But since we are, and as per Lars' comments, we desperately
> need some of the features.
>
> Let's move the discussions to individual backporting jiras. We can gauge reward
> / risk on a case by case basis (which we have been doing a decent
> job so far)
>
> Enis
>
>
> On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 1:27 PM, Stack <[EMAIL PROTECTED] <javascript:;>>
> wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Mar 1, 2013 at 6:10 PM, lars hofhansl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]<javascript:;>>
> wrote:
> >
> > > So it seems that until we have a stable 0.96 (maybe 0.96.1 or 0.96.2)
> we
> > > have three options:
> > > 1. Backport new features to 0.94 as we see fit as long as we do not
> > > destabilize 0.94.
> > > 2. Declare a certain point release (0.94.6 looks like a good candidate)
> > as
> > > a "long term", create an 0.94.6 branch (in addition to the usual 0.94.6
> > > tag) and than create 0.94.6.x fix only releases. I would volunteer to
> > > maintain a 0.94.6 branch in addition to the 0.94 branch.
> > > 3. Categorically do not backport new features into 0.94 and defer to
> > 0.95.
> > >
> >
> > I want us to get to #3.  Lets get to 1.0.0 sooner rather than later so we
> > have more numbers to play with (0.96 == 1.0.0?)
> >
> > Regards #1, +1, but how to verify we do not destabilize 0.94?
> >
> > -1 on #2.  Just confuses.
> >
> > As has been said already, we'd probably not be having this conversation
> nor
> > feeling the need to backport features if 0.96 was out.
> >
> > St.Ack
> >
>
--
Best regards,

   - Andy

Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet Hein
(via Tom White)
+
Dave Wang 2013-03-01, 16:38
+
Lars Hofhansl 2013-03-02, 02:46
+
Enis Söztutar 2013-03-02, 02:54
+
Jean-Marc Spaggiari 2013-03-02, 03:12
+
lars hofhansl 2013-03-02, 03:24
+
Ted Yu 2013-03-02, 03:30
+
lars hofhansl 2013-03-02, 03:44
+
Nicolas Liochon 2013-03-02, 11:43
+
Ted 2013-03-02, 11:57
+
Jonathan Hsieh 2013-03-02, 15:36
+
lars hofhansl 2013-03-02, 16:47
+
Ted Yu 2013-03-02, 16:14
+
Jonathan Hsieh 2013-03-02, 16:26
+
lars hofhansl 2013-03-02, 20:46
+
Jonathan Hsieh 2013-03-02, 21:49
+
Stack 2013-03-02, 23:24
+
lars hofhansl 2013-03-02, 03:23
+
Lars Hofhansl 2013-03-02, 02:45