On 06/01/2010 09:21 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> AVRO-496. python sample_http_client.py is broken (Jeff Hodges via hammer)
>
>
> Modified:
>      avro/branches/branch-1.3/CHANGES.txt
>      avro/branches/branch-1.3/lang/py/test/sample_http_client.py

When merging something from trunk you should indicate that in the commit
message.  The commit message format used in Hadoop is, "Merge rXXX from
trunk to branch-1.3.  Fixes AVRO-YYY."

Are you using 'svn merge' for these?  Since subversion 1.5 that should
keep track of revisions done with 'svn merge', perhaps obviating the
need to mention them in the commit message, but I see no 'svn mergeinfo'
for the 1.3 branch, so I'm guessing you're not.

Also, you should update trunk's CHANGES.txt so that these changes show
up in the 1.3.3 section there and no longer in the 1.4.0 section.

Doug

>
> When merging something from trunk you should indicate that in the commit
> message.  The commit message format used in Hadoop is, "Merge rXXX from
> trunk to branch-1.3.  Fixes AVRO-YYY."
>

Yeah saw that on the HowToRelease wiki page after merging.
> Are you using 'svn merge' for these?  Since subversion 1.5 that should keep
> track of revisions done with 'svn merge', perhaps obviating the need to
> mention them in the commit message, but I see no 'svn mergeinfo' for the 1.3
> branch, so I'm guessing you're not.
>

Yep, using svn merge -c <revision number> <path_to_avro_trunk>

Also, you should update trunk's CHANGES.txt so that these changes show up in
> the 1.3.3 section there and no longer in the 1.4.0 section.
Going to update it when we actually have a release.

On 06/01/2010 10:46 AM, Jeff Hammerbacher wrote:
>> Also, you should update trunk's CHANGES.txt so that these changes show up in
>> the 1.3.3 section there and no longer in the 1.4.0 section.
>
> Going to update it when we actually have a release.

So, rather than maintaining this incrementally, you want to move all of
these en-masse?  That's fine with me, if you want to take on keeping
this straight.  To my thinking, it's simpler to maintain this as we go.

Doug

>
> So, rather than maintaining this incrementally, you want to move all of
> these en-masse?  That's fine with me, if you want to take on keeping this
> straight.  To my thinking, it's simpler to maintain this as we go.
>

Should be a simple copy-paste from the CHANGES.txt in branch-1.3, no?

FWIW, I think we have exposed my experiences with using a data warehouse for
so many years. Bypassing the transaction engine with a bulk load instead of
using a long-running transaction for mass edits is in my blood...

On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 11:06 AM, Jeff Hammerbacher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:

> So, rather than maintaining this incrementally, you want to move all of
>> these en-masse?  That's fine with me, if you want to take on keeping this
>> straight.  To my thinking, it's simpler to maintain this as we go.
>>
>
> Should be a simple copy-paste from the CHANGES.txt in branch-1.3, no?
>

On 06/01/2010 11:06 AM, Jeff Hammerbacher wrote:
>> So, rather than maintaining this incrementally, you want to move all of
>> these en-masse?  That's fine with me, if you want to take on keeping this
>> straight.  To my thinking, it's simpler to maintain this as we go.
>
> Should be a simple copy-paste from the CHANGES.txt in branch-1.3, no?

You'll have to also then find each message that was pasted and remove it
from the 1.4.0 section.  Not a big deal.

Another reason to update-as-we-go is to better track of what's been
merged and what's not.  If the CHANGES.txt in trunk and the branch
disagree then folks have to know which takes precedence.

Doug

Ruby side is merged into branch-1.3.
--
Jeff

On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 11:13 AM, Doug Cutting <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 06/01/2010 11:06 AM, Jeff Hammerbacher wrote:
>>>
>>> So, rather than maintaining this incrementally, you want to move all of
>>> these en-masse?  That's fine with me, if you want to take on keeping this
>>> straight.  To my thinking, it's simpler to maintain this as we go.
>>
>> Should be a simple copy-paste from the CHANGES.txt in branch-1.3, no?
>
> You'll have to also then find each message that was pasted and remove it
> from the 1.4.0 section.  Not a big deal.
>
> Another reason to update-as-we-go is to better track of what's been merged
> and what's not.  If the CHANGES.txt in trunk and the branch disagree then
> folks have to know which takes precedence.
>
> Doug
>

Thanks! C or C++ folks? I might try my hand at the merge this morning, since
there are only three total patches there, but I'd prefer if you guys chimed
in. I'm cutting the release at noon.

On Thu, Jun 3, 2010 at 10:40 PM, Jeff Hodges <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Ruby side is merged into branch-1.3.
> --
> Jeff
>
> On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 11:13 AM, Doug Cutting <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On 06/01/2010 11:06 AM, Jeff Hammerbacher wrote:
> >>>
> >>> So, rather than maintaining this incrementally, you want to move all of
> >>> these en-masse?  That's fine with me, if you want to take on keeping
> this
> >>> straight.  To my thinking, it's simpler to maintain this as we go.
> >>
> >> Should be a simple copy-paste from the CHANGES.txt in branch-1.3, no?
> >
> > You'll have to also then find each message that was pasted and remove it
> > from the 1.4.0 section.  Not a big deal.
> >
> > Another reason to update-as-we-go is to better track of what's been
> merged
> > and what's not.  If the CHANGES.txt in trunk and the branch disagree then
> > folks have to know which takes precedence.
> >
> > Doug
> >
>

Nothing on the C side. My changes are still in-progress and are API breaking
in major ways (and more API changes coming before we're ready for 1.4).

I've no idea about the C++ side.

 - Bruce

On Fri, Jun 4, 2010 at 9:58 PM, Jeff Hammerbacher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:

> Thanks! C or C++ folks? I might try my hand at the merge this morning,
> since
> there are only three total patches there, but I'd prefer if you guys chimed
> in. I'm cutting the release at noon.
>
> On Thu, Jun 3, 2010 at 10:40 PM, Jeff Hodges <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Ruby side is merged into branch-1.3.
> > --
> > Jeff
> >
> > On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 11:13 AM, Doug Cutting <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> > > On 06/01/2010 11:06 AM, Jeff Hammerbacher wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>> So, rather than maintaining this incrementally, you want to move all
> of
> > >>> these en-masse?  That's fine with me, if you want to take on keeping
> > this
> > >>> straight.  To my thinking, it's simpler to maintain this as we go.
> > >>
> > >> Should be a simple copy-paste from the CHANGES.txt in branch-1.3, no?
> > >
> > > You'll have to also then find each message that was pasted and remove
> it
> > > from the 1.4.0 section.  Not a big deal.
> > >
> > > Another reason to update-as-we-go is to better track of what's been
> > merged
> > > and what's not.  If the CHANGES.txt in trunk and the branch disagree
> then
> > > folks have to know which takes precedence.
> > >
> > > Doug
> > >
> >
>