Thanks, makes a lot of sense. I've deleted branch-1.1.0 from the repository, hopefully this will reduce confusion. The tags remain.
-n On Fri, May 22, 2015 at 9:34 PM, lars hofhansl <[email protected]> wrote: > Same here. > Actually for 0.94, I simply spun RCs as tags off the 0.94 branch - hence > each RC had whatever is the latest on the branch when I create the > tag.Easier to keep track of things, and to make sure jira and git are in > sync. > Just personal preference of course. > I just had to figure out whether I need to cherry-pick a change into > branch-1.1.0 as well; the answer appears to be "no". > Thanks. > -- Lars > From: Nick Dimiduk <[email protected]> > To: hbase-dev <[email protected]> > Sent: Friday, May 22, 2015 11:33 AM > Subject: Re: Git branch-1.1.0? > > On Fri, May 22, 2015 at 11:28 AM, Andrew Purtell <[email protected]> > 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 <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > Pardon, that was an unfortunate typo. I meant branch-1.1.0. > > > > > > > > > On Fri, May 22, 2015 at 11:06 AM, Nick Dimiduk <[email protected]> > > > 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 < > > [email protected] > > >> > > > >> wrote: > > >> > > >> > So what should we do with branch-1.1? Delete it? > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > On Fri, May 22, 2015 at 5:09 AM, Ted Yu <[email protected]> > wrote: > > >> > > > >> > > Thanks for the correction, Andrew. > > >> > > > > >> > > On Thu, May 21, 2015 at 10:43 PM, Andrew Purtell < > > >> > [email protected] > > >> > > > 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 <[email protected]> > > >> 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 <[email protected]> > > >> > >> > To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>; lars > > hofhansl < > > >> > >> [email protected]> > > >> > >> > 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 < > > [email protected] > > >> > > > >> > >> 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) > > > > > >
