Just filed a jira with patch for this. See HBASE-4447. Thanks,
Joep -----Original Message----- From: saint....@gmail.com [mailto:saint....@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Stack Sent: Monday, September 19, 2011 9:21 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] On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 8:53 PM, Jesse Yates <jesse.k.ya...@gmail.com> wrote: > You should be able to pretty easily set in in the pom (under > properties), and then just use in the <version> tag. > Where are the pom properties Jesse? Thanks, St.Ack > That way whenever you want to to bump version numbers, its one easy change. > > -Jesse Yates > > On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 8:47 PM, Stack <st...@duboce.net> wrote: > >> I changed versions. How would you make hbase.version work? Looks >> like you can't set project.version. I could change it to >> ${hbase.version} but then how to do the default value? >> St.Ack >> >> On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 8:24 PM, Rottinghuis, Joep >> <jrottingh...@ebay.com> wrote: >> > Trunk should probably go to get a newer version as well (0.93?) Can >> > you make the version a property that I can override using >> -Dhbase.version=0.92-my-own-name? >> > >> > Thanks, >> > >> > Joep >> > -----Original Message----- >> > From: saint....@gmail.com [mailto:saint....@gmail.com] On Behalf Of >> Stack >> > Sent: Monday, September 19, 2011 8:23 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] >> > >> > 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 >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >> >> > >> >
