I'd like to propose branching friday week, the 16th. Hopefully that will might get folks to focus on these last outstanding issues (of which there are quite a few).
Thereafter we need to work on stabilization which I'm sure will turn up at least one bug, maybe two (smile). Stabilization will run for a good while I'd say and will take some effort all around. Only bug fixes should go into 0.92 branch (J-D might have to tie me to the mast). Should we discuss in a separate whether to pull in security? St.Ack On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 6:44 PM, Andrew Purtell <[email protected]> wrote: > I also agreed at the time to hold off refactoring the build for Maven modules > and supporting RPC engine variants. I would still have the same opinion if > not for recent events. > > How much work remains for 0.92? If more than a few week's worth, then a > parallel refactor of the build could happen, with a final merge step. > > Best regards, > > - Andy > > On Tue Sep 6th, 2011 12:02 PM PDT Gary Helmling wrote: > >>> Seems like committing it will disrupt the build and src tree layout. >>> Gary was holding off till we branched but 0.92 branching is taking too >>> long. >>> >>> + Lets branch this friday, or next? >>> + And or, run a vote on whether we should commit security now before >>> we branch or after >>> >>> >> >>This is getting off topic for the current thread, so I'll open a new thread >>to take a vote on converting trunk back in to maven modules. This is what >>would be necessary to integrate the various security bits. >> >>The last discussion we had on this was on the dev list at the end of >>May/beginning of June: >>http://search-hadoop.com/m/iXZmd2aZwBE1 >> >>I agreed as much as anyone that we should hold off until after branching >>0.92 in order to avoid the disruption of moving the entire source tree >>around. So I have been holding off on this on my own discretion and any >>delay sits mostly with me. >> >>Of course, that was three months ago and we still haven't branched. In >>hindsight, if we were aware how long the 0.92 process would go on, I think >>the thread might have reached a different conclusion. In any case, I think >>it warrants another discussion. >> >>--gh > >
