Home | About | Sematext search-lucene.com search-hadoop.com
NEW: Monitor These Apps!
elasticsearch, apache solr, apache hbase, hadoop, redis, casssandra, amazon cloudwatch, mysql, memcached, apache kafka, apache zookeeper, apache storm, ubuntu, centOS, red hat, debian, puppet labs, java, senseiDB
 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
NEW: Monitor These Apps!
elasticsearch, apache solr, apache hbase, hadoop, redis, casssandra, amazon cloudwatch, mysql, memcached, apache kafka, apache zookeeper, apache storm, ubuntu, centOS, red hat, debian, puppet labs, java, senseiDB