Hi Wangda, I'll cut two branches: branch-3.0 (3.0.0-SNAPSHOT) and branch-3.0.0-beta1 (3.0.0-beta1-SNAPSHOT). This way we can merge GA features to branch-3.0 but not branch-3.0.0-beta1.
Best, Andrew On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 11:18 AM, Wangda Tan <wheele...@gmail.com> wrote: > Vrushali, > > Sure we can wait TSv2 merged before merge resource profile branch. > > Andrew, > > My understanding is you're going to cut branch-3.0 for 3.0-beta1, and the > same branch (branch-3.0) will be used for 3.0-GA as well. So my question > is, there're several features (TSv2, resource profile, YARN-5734) are > targeted to merge to 3.0-GA but not 3.0-beta1, which branch we should > commit to, and when we can commit? Also, similar to 3.0.0-alpha1 to 4, you > will cut branch-3.0.0-beta1, correct? > > Thanks, > Wangda > > > On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 11:05 AM, Andrew Wang <andrew.w...@cloudera.com> > wrote: > >> Sure. Ping me when the TSv2 goes in, and I can take care of branching. >> >> We're still waiting on the native services and S3Guard merges, but I >> don't want to hold branching to the last minute. >> >> On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 10:51 AM, Vrushali C <vrushalic2...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> Hi Andrew, >>> As Rohith mentioned, if you are good with it, from the TSv2 side, we are >>> ready to go for merge tonight itself (Pacific time) right after the voting >>> period ends. Varun Saxena has been diligently rebasing up until now so most >>> likely our merge should be reasonably straightforward. >>> >>> @Wangda: your resource profile vote ends tomorrow, could we please >>> coordinate our merges? >>> >>> thanks >>> Vrushali >>> >>> >>> On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 10:45 PM, Rohith Sharma K S < >>> rohithsharm...@apache.org> wrote: >>> >>>> On 29 August 2017 at 06:24, Andrew Wang <andrew.w...@cloudera.com> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> > So far I've seen no -1's to the branching proposal, so I plan to >>>> execute >>>> > this tomorrow unless there's further feedback. >>>> > >>>> For on going branch merge threads i.e TSv2, voting will be closing >>>> tomorrow. Does it end up in merging into trunk(3.1.0-SNAPSHOT) and >>>> branch-3.0(3.0.0-beta1-SNAPSHOT) ? If so, would you be able to wait for >>>> couple of more days before creating branch-3.0 so that TSv2 branch merge >>>> would be done directly to trunk? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> > >>>> > Regarding the above discussion, I think Jason and I have essentially >>>> the >>>> > same opinion. >>>> > >>>> > I hope that keeping trunk a release branch means a higher bar for >>>> merges >>>> > and code review in general. In the past, I've seen some patches >>>> committed >>>> > to trunk-only as a way of passing responsibility to a future user or >>>> > reviewer. That doesn't help anyone; patches should be committed with >>>> the >>>> > intent of running them in production. >>>> > >>>> > I'd also like to repeat the above thanks to the many, many >>>> contributors >>>> > who've helped with release improvements. Allen's work on >>>> create-release and >>>> > automated changes and release notes were essential, as was Xiao's >>>> work on >>>> > LICENSE and NOTICE files. I'm also looking forward to Marton's site >>>> > improvements, which addresses one of the remaining sore spots in the >>>> > release process. >>>> > >>>> > Things have gotten smoother with each alpha we've done over the last >>>> year, >>>> > and it's a testament to everyone's work that we have a good >>>> probability of >>>> > shipping beta and GA later this year. >>>> > >>>> > Cheers, >>>> > Andrew >>>> > >>>> > >>>> >>> >>> >> >
