I applied your patch to 0.92 and trunk. St.Ack
On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 9:22 PM, Rottinghuis, Joep <jrottingh...@ebay.com> wrote: > 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 >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >> >>> > >>> >> >
