That makes sense. Let me make the change. St.Ack
On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 8:02 PM, Rottinghuis, Joep <jrottingh...@ebay.com> wrote: > Michael, > > Should the version in the pom on the 0.92 branch point to 0.92.0-SNAPSHOT? > If so I can file a bug and supply patch for same. > Or are you updating that only when you get ready for a release? > > Thanks, > > Joep > -----Original Message----- > From: Rottinghuis, Joep [mailto:jrottingh...@ebay.com] > Sent: Monday, September 19, 2011 6:02 PM > To: dev@hbase.apache.org > Subject: RE: Branching for 0.92 [WAS -> Re: [DISCUSSION] Accumulo, another > BigTable clone, has shown up on Apache Incubator as a proposal] > > Thanks St.Ack! > > Joep > -----Original Message----- > From: saint....@gmail.com [mailto:saint....@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Stack > Sent: Sunday, September 18, 2011 12:12 PM > To: dev@hbase.apache.org > Subject: Re: Branching for 0.92 [WAS -> Re: [DISCUSSION] Accumulo, another > BigTable clone, has shown up on Apache Incubator as a proposal] > > I was sort of waiting on a clean build to TRUNK before branching. I think we > should be there in next hour or so. I'll branch this evening or by tomorrow > morning. That OK w/ you Joep? > > St.Ack > > On Sat, Sep 17, 2011 at 8:42 PM, Rottinghuis, Joep <jrottingh...@ebay.com> > wrote: >> Any update on the 0.92 branch getting cut? >> >> Cheers, >> >> Joep >> ________________________________________ >> From: saint....@gmail.com [saint....@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Stack >> [st...@duboce.net] >> Sent: Tuesday, September 06, 2011 8:42 PM >> To: dev@hbase.apache.org >> Subject: Branching for 0.92 [WAS -> Re: [DISCUSSION] Accumulo, another >> BigTable clone, has shown up on Apache Incubator as a proposal] >> >> 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 <apurt...@apache.org> 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 >>> >>> >
