+1 On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 11:30 AM, Julian Hyde <[email protected]> wrote:
> I volunteer to be release manager, since no one else has stepped forward. > > I've been trying to get > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CALCITE-466 complete before 1.0, > but it just isn't happening fast enough[1]. So, I propose to drop > CALCITE-466 from the goals for 1.0. > > Are there any remaining blockers for 1.0? > > If there are no blockers, I'll update the change history, create a new > snapshot for Hive and others to try, start running through the release > process[2], and we should have a release-candidate in a day or two. > > Julian > > [1] More details about the CALCITE-466 task, if you're interested: One > of the pre-requisites was to make the interpreter handle all the SQL > in the test suite (pretty much the whole of SQL), and user-defined > aggregates, windowed aggregation and outer joins are not working yet. > There are still about 100 test failures. It's impossible to go from > there to a stable release candidate in a few days. I'll check in my > changes to the interpreter, but the interpreter will not be on the > main code path; enumerable convention will continue to be used to > evaluate most of our test queries. > > [2] > https://github.com/apache/incubator-calcite/blob/master/doc/HOWTO.md#making-a-release-for-calcite-committers > > > On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 11:05 AM, Brock Noland <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi, > > > > From the Hive side, we don't expose Calcite to users so we should be > > able to handle any breakage on our end. > > > > Brock > > > > On Sun, Jan 18, 2015 at 7:54 PM, Jacques Nadeau <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> As long as everyone is comfortable with potential API breakage in 1.1, > I'm > >> +1 for a release as well. > >> > >> On Wed, Jan 14, 2015 at 3:29 PM, Julian Hyde <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> > >>> I agree. I would just like to get a release out. We’ve been talking > about > >>> 1.0 for several months, so no one should be surprised. > >>> > >>> If anyone is struck with pangs of methodological guilt over the fact > that > >>> we haven’t documented the public API, they are welcome to document it. > >>> > >>> Julian > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> On Jan 14, 2015, at 3:22 PM, Vladimir Sitnikov < > >>> [email protected]> wrote: > >>> > >>> > If we polish really hard and make 1.0 perfect, then we would have > nothing > >>> > to do for 2.0 ) > >>> > > >>> > I would prefer release sooner, so we can get feedback. > >>> > > >>> > Otherwise I have no preference. > >>> > > >>> > Vladimir > >>> > >>> >
