Seems to me that stale branches have started accumulating. Here's what I am thinking.

2.* line
 - 2.0.1-alpha is released, so branch-2.0.1-alpha should instead be called branch-2.0.2-alpha?

0.23.* line
 - 0.23.1 was released long time back, so knock off branch-0.23.1 altogether?
 - 0.23.2 seems to be dead, so knock off branch-0.23.2 too?
 - 0.23.3 is the next expected release, so I suppose all the commits are going into branch-0.23. Either we can
    -- create branch-0.23.3 out of branch-0.23 now itself or
    -- commit as is to branch-0.23 and create RC out of the same whenever that happens.

Thanks,
+Vinod
PS: I missed action for ~1 month, please correct me if I am wrong.

I plan to do a RC of 0.23.3 in the next few days.  I am waiting for some
tests of what is on branch-0.23 right now to pass before I create the
branch.  MAPREDUCE-3943 went in recently and it is big enough I want some
more tests before I feel comfortable with it.  The tests for it so far
look good so I expect to get started on it today or tomorrow, but I have
never done a release before so I am sure it will take me a few days to get
everything right. Also I don't see any reason to branch early when all
that is going in is bug fixes.

--Bobby Evans
On 8/27/12 8:55 PM, "Vinod Kumar Vavilapalli" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:

>Seems to me that stale branches have started accumulating. Here's what I
>am thinking.
>
>2.* line
> - 2.0.1-alpha is released, so branch-2.0.1-alpha should instead be
>called branch-2.0.2-alpha?
>
>0.23.* line
> - 0.23.1 was released long time back, so knock off branch-0.23.1
>altogether?
> - 0.23.2 seems to be dead, so knock off branch-0.23.2 too?
> - 0.23.3 is the next expected release, so I suppose all the commits are
>going into branch-0.23. Either we can
>    -- create branch-0.23.3 out of branch-0.23 now itself or
>    -- commit as is to branch-0.23 and create RC out of the same whenever
>that happens.
>
>Thanks,
>+Vinod
>PS: I missed action for ~1 month, please correct me if I am wrong.

Thanks Bobby, makes sense to keep 0.23.3 as is for now.

What about my comments about 23.1 and 23.2?

Thanks,
+Vinod

On Aug 28, 2012, at 6:47 AM, Robert Evans wrote:

> I plan to do a RC of 0.23.3 in the next few days.  I am waiting for some
> tests of what is on branch-0.23 right now to pass before I create the
> branch.  MAPREDUCE-3943 went in recently and it is big enough I want some
> more tests before I feel comfortable with it.  The tests for it so far
> look good so I expect to get started on it today or tomorrow, but I have
> never done a release before so I am sure it will take me a few days to get
> everything right. Also I don't see any reason to branch early when all
> that is going in is bug fixes.
>
> --Bobby Evans
>
>
> On 8/27/12 8:55 PM, "Vinod Kumar Vavilapalli" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
>> Seems to me that stale branches have started accumulating. Here's what I
>> am thinking.
>>
>> 2.* line
>> - 2.0.1-alpha is released, so branch-2.0.1-alpha should instead be
>> called branch-2.0.2-alpha?
>>
>> 0.23.* line
>> - 0.23.1 was released long time back, so knock off branch-0.23.1
>> altogether?
>> - 0.23.2 seems to be dead, so knock off branch-0.23.2 too?
>> - 0.23.3 is the next expected release, so I suppose all the commits are
>> going into branch-0.23. Either we can
>>   -- create branch-0.23.3 out of branch-0.23 now itself or
>>   -- commit as is to branch-0.23 and create RC out of the same whenever
>> that happens.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> +Vinod
>> PS: I missed action for ~1 month, please correct me if I am wrong.
>

I am fine with 23.1 and 23.2 going away, so long as 23.1 has a tag.

--Bobby

On 8/28/12 1:36 PM, "Vinod Kumar Vavilapalli" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:

>
>Thanks Bobby, makes sense to keep 0.23.3 as is for now.
>
>What about my comments about 23.1 and 23.2?
>
>Thanks,
>+Vinod
>
>On Aug 28, 2012, at 6:47 AM, Robert Evans wrote:
>
>> I plan to do a RC of 0.23.3 in the next few days.  I am waiting for some
>> tests of what is on branch-0.23 right now to pass before I create the
>> branch.  MAPREDUCE-3943 went in recently and it is big enough I want
>>some
>> more tests before I feel comfortable with it.  The tests for it so far
>> look good so I expect to get started on it today or tomorrow, but I have
>> never done a release before so I am sure it will take me a few days to
>>get
>> everything right. Also I don't see any reason to branch early when all
>> that is going in is bug fixes.
>>
>> --Bobby Evans
>>
>>
>> On 8/27/12 8:55 PM, "Vinod Kumar Vavilapalli" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Seems to me that stale branches have started accumulating. Here's what
>>>I
>>> am thinking.
>>>
>>> 2.* line
>>> - 2.0.1-alpha is released, so branch-2.0.1-alpha should instead be
>>> called branch-2.0.2-alpha?
>>>
>>> 0.23.* line
>>> - 0.23.1 was released long time back, so knock off branch-0.23.1
>>> altogether?
>>> - 0.23.2 seems to be dead, so knock off branch-0.23.2 too?
>>> - 0.23.3 is the next expected release, so I suppose all the commits are
>>> going into branch-0.23. Either we can
>>>   -- create branch-0.23.3 out of branch-0.23 now itself or
>>>   -- commit as is to branch-0.23 and create RC out of the same whenever
>>> that happens.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> +Vinod
>>> PS: I missed action for ~1 month, please correct me if I am wrong.
>>
>

On Mon, Aug 27, 2012 at 6:55 PM, Vinod Kumar Vavilapalli <
[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Seems to me that stale branches have started accumulating.
I just cleaned up some obvious trash from the branches directory:

MR-279
MR-279-merge
MR-279-merge-to-trunk
yahoo-merge

I'd also like to delete the now defunct and unreleased:
branch-0.20-append
branch-0.20-security-202
branch-0.21-old

I would like to rename the following release branches:

branch-0.20-security-203 -> branch-0.20.203
branch-0.20-security-204 -> branch-0.20.204
branch-0.20-security-205 -> branch-0.20.205

I believe the following ones should also be deleted:
branch-0.23-PB
branch-1.0.2 (equal to the tag/release-1.0.2)
> Here's what I am thinking.
>
> 2.* line
>  - 2.0.1-alpha is released, so branch-2.0.1-alpha should instead be called
> branch-2.0.2-alpha?
>

We should rename the 2.x branches as:
branch-2.0.1-alpha -> branch-2.0
branch-2.1.0-alpha -> branch-2.1
> 0.23.* line
>  - 0.23.1 was released long time back, so knock off branch-0.23.1
> altogether?
>  - 0.23.2 seems to be dead, so knock off branch-0.23.2 too?
>  - 0.23.3 is the next expected release, so I suppose all the commits are
> going into branch-0.23. Either we can
>     -- create branch-0.23.3 out of branch-0.23 now itself or
>     -- commit as is to branch-0.23 and create RC out of the same whenever
> that happens.
>

There should only be a single 0.23 branch, so we should delete
branch-0.23.0
branch-0.23.1
branch-0.23.2

Any concerns?

-- Owen

On Aug 31, 2012, at 2:26 PM, Owen O'Malley wrote:
>
> We should rename the 2.x branches as:
> branch-2.0.1-alpha -> branch-2.0
> branch-2.1.0-alpha -> branch-2.1

I'm ok with the rest, but please don't rename the 'alpha' branches. We'll need those for later after hadoop-2 is stable.

thanks,
Arun

On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 2:28 PM, Arun C Murthy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> On Aug 31, 2012, at 2:26 PM, Owen O'Malley wrote:
> >
> > We should rename the 2.x branches as:
> > branch-2.0.1-alpha -> branch-2.0
> > branch-2.1.0-alpha -> branch-2.1
>
> I'm ok with the rest, but please don't rename the 'alpha' branches. We'll need those for later after hadoop-2 is stable.
The pattern that we follow is that branches look like:

-------------------------------------------> trunk
    \
     \------> branch-2.0
      \
       \-----> branch-2.1
        \
         v
          branch-2

With tags having the triples (2.0.0, 2.0.1). I was assuming that
branch-2.0.1 was supposed to be branch-2.0. branch-2.0.1 only makes
sense if your releases/tags are going to be 2.0.1.0.

-- Owen

Seems like we are done with cleanup of 0.23.* and a separate email thread in progress on common-dev@h.a.o w.r.t 2.* branches.

Thanks for doing the needful, Owen!

+Vinod

On Aug 31, 2012, at 3:04 PM, Owen O'Malley wrote:

> On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 2:28 PM, Arun C Murthy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Aug 31, 2012, at 2:26 PM, Owen O'Malley wrote:
>>>
>>> We should rename the 2.x branches as:
>>> branch-2.0.1-alpha -> branch-2.0
>>> branch-2.1.0-alpha -> branch-2.1
>>
>> I'm ok with the rest, but please don't rename the 'alpha' branches. We'll need those for later after hadoop-2 is stable.
>
>
> The pattern that we follow is that branches look like:
>
> -------------------------------------------> trunk
>    \
>     \------> branch-2.0
>      \
>       \-----> branch-2.1
>        \
>         v
>          branch-2
>
> With tags having the triples (2.0.0, 2.0.1). I was assuming that
> branch-2.0.1 was supposed to be branch-2.0. branch-2.0.1 only makes
> sense if your releases/tags are going to be 2.0.1.0.
>
> -- Owen

On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 2:26 PM, Owen O'Malley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 27, 2012 at 6:55 PM, Vinod Kumar Vavilapalli <
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Seems to me that stale branches have started accumulating.
>
>
> I just cleaned up some obvious trash from the branches directory:
>
> MR-279
> MR-279-merge
> MR-279-merge-to-trunk
> yahoo-merge
>
> I'd also like to delete the now defunct and unreleased:
> branch-0.20-append
> branch-0.20-security-202
> branch-0.21-old
>
> I would like to rename the following release branches:
>
> branch-0.20-security-203 -> branch-0.20.203
> branch-0.20-security-204 -> branch-0.20.204
> branch-0.20-security-205 -> branch-0.20.205
>
> I believe the following ones should also be deleted:
> branch-0.23-PB
> branch-1.0.2 (equal to the tag/release-1.0.2)
>
>
>> Here's what I am thinking.
>>
>> 2.* line
>>  - 2.0.1-alpha is released, so branch-2.0.1-alpha should instead be called
>> branch-2.0.2-alpha?
>>
>
> We should rename the 2.x branches as:
> branch-2.0.1-alpha -> branch-2.0
> branch-2.1.0-alpha -> branch-2.1
>
>
>> 0.23.* line
>>  - 0.23.1 was released long time back, so knock off branch-0.23.1
>> altogether?
>>  - 0.23.2 seems to be dead, so knock off branch-0.23.2 too?
>>  - 0.23.3 is the next expected release, so I suppose all the commits are
>> going into branch-0.23. Either we can
>>     -- create branch-0.23.3 out of branch-0.23 now itself or
>>     -- commit as is to branch-0.23 and create RC out of the same whenever
>> that happens.
>>
>
> There should only be a single 0.23 branch, so we should delete
> branch-0.23.0
> branch-0.23.1
> branch-0.23.2
>
> Any concerns?

Looks good to me.

I could go either way on the branch-2.x ones.