On Fri, May 22, 2015 at 11:28 AM, Andrew Purtell <apurt...@apache.org> wrote:
> FWIW, I make local branches for RCs but only push up tags I make from > commits on the local branch, not a ref for the branch. > Oh, interesting. Would that have been the more correct action for me to have taken with the RC approach I used? If I delete branch-1.1.0, the tags would remain? I don't think deleting the branch is helpful. Sorry about the confusion though, I should have sent a note to dev explaining myself when I took the action. -n On Fri, May 22, 2015 at 11:26 AM, Andrew Purtell <apurt...@apache.org> > wrote: > > > Pardon, that was an unfortunate typo. I meant branch-1.1.0. > > > > > > On Fri, May 22, 2015 at 11:06 AM, Nick Dimiduk <ndimi...@apache.org> > > wrote: > > > >> Don't delete branch-1.1. Let me explain. > >> > >> branch-1.1.0 was my use in creating rc1+. I created it from the 1.1.0rc0 > >> tag and spun subsequent RC's as commits on that branch. The idea was to > >> de-risk further RC's by not bringing in changes that were unrelated to > >> reviewers' criticisms raised on the VOTE thread. Any fixes were first > >> committed to branch-1.1 and then applied to branch-1.1.0 (rc1 was sunk > >> because I had brought back a patch from master instead of branch-1.1). > Now > >> that 1.1.0 is released, branch-1.1.0 is effectively dead -- except for > hot > >> fix releases; I didn't check but I would expected 1.1.0.1 to have been > cut > >> from branch-1.1.0. Further branch-1.1.x patch release will be cut from > >> branch-1.1 as "normal". I may or may not create similar branches for > >> further release candidates on the 1.1 line, depending on how RC > candidate > >> stabilization goes. > >> > >> When we're ready for 1.2, it will be branched from branch-1, creating > >> branch-1.2. > >> > >> On Fri, May 22, 2015 at 9:30 AM, Andrew Purtell < > andrew.purt...@gmail.com > >> > > >> wrote: > >> > >> > So what should we do with branch-1.1? Delete it? > >> > > >> > > >> > On Fri, May 22, 2015 at 5:09 AM, Ted Yu <yuzhih...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > > >> > > Thanks for the correction, Andrew. > >> > > > >> > > On Thu, May 21, 2015 at 10:43 PM, Andrew Purtell < > >> > andrew.purt...@gmail.com > >> > > > wrote: > >> > > > >> > >> I think there is some confusion here because I'd expect to make a > 1.2 > >> > >> release branch from branch-1, eventually. Branch-1 is even > helpfully > >> > >> versioned 1.2.0-SNAPSHOT. We have enough branches already (smile). > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > On May 21, 2015, at 10:26 PM, lars hofhansl <la...@apache.org> > >> wrote: > >> > >> > > >> > >> > Huh? We should create a 1.2 branch of branch-1. We do not need to > >> have > >> > >> a branch for every patch release.There's clearly something I am > >> missing. > >> > >> > -- Lars > >> > >> > From: Ted Yu <yuzhih...@gmail.com> > >> > >> > To: "dev@hbase.apache.org" <dev@hbase.apache.org>; lars > hofhansl < > >> > >> la...@apache.org> > >> > >> > Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2015 10:13 PM > >> > >> > Subject: Re: Git branch-1.1.0? > >> > >> > > >> > >> > branch-1.1 corresponds to the (upcoming) 1.2.0 release. > >> > >> > > >> > >> > branch-1.1.0 was for the just released 1.1.0 > >> > >> > > >> > >> > Cheers > >> > >> > > >> > >> > > >> > >> > > >> > >> >> On Thu, May 21, 2015 at 10:00 PM, lars hofhansl < > la...@apache.org > >> > > >> > >> wrote: > >> > >> >> > >> > >> >> Just saw we have a branch-1.1.0 branch in git. What do we use > that > >> > one > >> > >> >> for? 1.1.x releases should be tags on branch-1.1, no? > >> > >> >> Thanks. > >> > >> >> -- Lars > >> > >> > > >> > >> > > >> > >> > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > -- > > Best regards, > > > > - Andy > > > > Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet Hein > > (via Tom White) > > > > > > -- > Best regards, > > - Andy > > Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet Hein > (via Tom White) >
