On Tue, Jul 1, 2014 at 4:01 PM, Enis Söztutar <enis....@gmail.com> wrote:
> One other thing we can do is that we can commit the patch to 0.98 if you > +1, do the RC, but hold on for committing to 1.0. During the RC vote > timeframe, we can then reach a consensus for whether the patch should go > into both branches. > It would be a shame to loose track of patches because of this additional administrative step happening asynchronously from initial push of the commit. On Tue, Jul 1, 2014 at 3:34 PM, Andrew Purtell <apurt...@apache.org> wrote: > > > I agree just about everything related to HBASE-10856 is something that > > merits discussion and consensus. > > > > > My main goal for branch-1 is to limit the exposure for unrelated > changes > > in the branch for a more stable release > > > > This is a goal shared by 0.98 so that's no issue at all. > > > > What we should sort out is coordinating RTC on multiple active branches. > > For example, it's not possible for me to commit to rolling a 0.98 RC on a > > particular day if we have a blocker that needs to go through 1.0 first, > > since it is not clear for any given commit when or if it will be acked > for > > 1.0. > > > > > > On Tue, Jul 1, 2014 at 3:29 PM, Enis Söztutar <e...@apache.org> wrote: > > > > > Agreed that for every feature including security, we should be careful > to > > > not create a gap in terms of support (release x supporting, release x+1 > > not > > > supporting, release x+2 supporting etc). > > > > > > My main goal for branch-1 is to limit the exposure for unrelated > changes > > in > > > the branch for a more stable release. If we think that we need to > > > fix/improve some things for 1.0 and 0.98.x, it will be ok to commit. > Some > > > of the items linked under > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-10856 > > > imply big changes, but it would be ok to commit those to have a clear > > > story. > > > > > > I think we can decide on a per-issue/feature basis. > > > Enis > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Jul 1, 2014 at 3:16 PM, Andrew Purtell <apurt...@apache.org> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > Now that I think about it more, actually every commit, since I don't > > > think > > > > we want a situation where something goes into master and 0.98, but > not > > > 1.0. > > > > We should discuss how to handle this. > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Jul 1, 2014 at 3:10 PM, Andrew Purtell <apurt...@apache.org> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > I'm curious what will be the policy for security commits? I plan to > > > take > > > > > all security changes into 0.98. If we have commits to master and > 0.98 > > > > that > > > > > will result in a serious feature / functionality discontinuity. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 8:56 PM, Enis Söztutar <enis....@gmail.com > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > >> I've pushed the branch, named branch-1: > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=hbase.git;a=shortlog;h=refs/heads/branch-1 > > > > >> > > > > >> Please do not commit new features to branch-1 without pinging the > RM > > > > (for > > > > >> 1.0 it is me). Bug fixes, and trivial commits can always go in. > > > > >> > > > > >> That branch still has 0.99.0-SNAPSHOT as the version number, since > > > next > > > > >> expected release from that is 0.99.0. Jenkins build for this > branch > > is > > > > >> setup at https://builds.apache.org/view/All/job/HBase-1.0/. It > > builds > > > > >> with > > > > >> latest jdk7. I'll try to stabilize the unit tests for the first > RC. > > > > >> > > > > >> I've changed the master version as well. It now builds with > > > > >> 2.0.0-SNAPSHOT. > > > > >> Exciting! > > > > >> > > > > >> Enis > > > > >> > > > > > > > -- > > Best regards, > > > > - Andy > > > > Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet Hein > > (via Tom White) > > >
