+1 Great to know the commitment of merge twitter's branch. Looking forward to see bookkeeper 4.5.
On Mon, Nov 21, 2016 at 6:36 PM, Flavio Junqueira <f...@apache.org> wrote: > It does make sense, Sijie, thanks for the update. > > -Flavio > > > On 17 Nov 2016, at 05:12, Sijie Guo <si...@apache.org> wrote: > > > > Flavio, > > > > I totally agreed that not using an official Apache version is not great > > for the community. We had a bookkeeper meetup last night. We've discussed > > the current situation with the community. We came to a commitment to > merge > > Twitter's branch back into bookkeeper 4.5. After that we won't maintain > our > > own branch and switch to 4.5. > > > > Hope this make sense. > > > > Sijie > > > > On Nov 16, 2016 8:04 PM, "Flavio Junqueira" <f...@apache.org> wrote: > > > > It isn't great that DistributedLog is not using the Apache BookKeeper > > release. Essentially anyone using DistributedLog today needs to use the > > Twitter branch of BookKeeper, which has diverged from Apache BookKeeper. > > I'm sure the changes in the Twitter branch are all great, but I'd be more > > comfortable being able to rely on the Apache BookKeeper releases, which > are > > community driven. > > > > I'm not going to block the release on this alone because it is important > > for this project to get a first release out soon, but we need to fix > DL-2. > > > > -Flavio > > > >> On 15 Nov 2016, at 19:02, Leigh Stewart <lstew...@twitter.com.INVALID> > > wrote: > >> > >> +1 > >> > >> On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 7:01 PM, Franck Cuny <franck.c...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > >> > >>> +1 and I agree to not make DL-2 a blocker. > >>> > >>> On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 2:02 AM, Xi Liu <xi.liu....@gmail.com> wrote: > >>> > >>>> +1 especially on DL-23. > >>>> > >>>> - Xi > >>>> > >>>> On Sat, Nov 12, 2016 at 2:22 AM, Khurrum Nasim < > khurrumnas...@gmail.com> > >>>> wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> +1 (non-binding) > >>>>> > >>>>> I am also interested in participating. > >>>>> > >>>>> - kn > >>>>> > >>>>> On Tue, Nov 8, 2016 at 11:08 PM, Sijie Guo <si...@apache.org> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>>> I'd like to start the discussion about the first release. There are > >>>>> still a > >>>>>> few discussions and pull requests outstanding. I think we need to > >>> pick > >>>>> up a > >>>>>> few items and cut the first release and then iterate from there. > Here > >>>> is > >>>>> a > >>>>>> list of items that I think we should include: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> - DL-4 <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DL-4>: Repackaging > >>>>> namespace > >>>>>> to org.apache (the pull request is out and under reviewing) > >>>>>> - DL-49 <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DL-49>: support > scala > >>>>> 2.10 > >>>>>> and 2.11 (the review is done, need to be merged) > >>>>>> - DL-23 <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DL-23>: Move DL to > >>>> depend > >>>>>> on > >>>>>> central maven repo. The main blocker is about the libthrift version, > >>>>> which > >>>>>> is only hosted at twtter's maven repo. There is a pull request out. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> I am kind of thinking to not make DL-2 > >>>>>> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DL-2> (using the official > >>>>>> bookkeeper > >>>>>> version) the blocker for the first release. We can cut a new release > >>>> once > >>>>>> that change is ready. So to decouple the release procedure between > DL > >>>> and > >>>>>> BK. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Please feel free to add any jiras that you believe it should be > >>>> included > >>>>> in > >>>>>> the first release. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Also, is there anyone interested in being the release manager for > >>> first > >>>>>> release? > >>>>>> > >>>>>> - Sijie > >>>>>> > >>>>> > >>>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> -- > >>> -franck > >>> > >
