On Wed, Jun 7, 2017 at 11:13 AM, Andrew Purtell <apurt...@apache.org> wrote:
> Thanks. > I'd like to see us RM branch-2, branch-1, and master and get away from > narrow focus on the branch-x.y branches that only produce patch releases. > Seems a better use of RM bandwidth to supervise a whole code line. > > I like this idea. Lets try it. Related, I just published 2.0.0-SNAPSHOT cut from branch-2. I'm thinking of just putting this up as RC for 2.0.0-alpha1. Any objections? Would be good to have something up even if it has wrong hadoop, wrong libs, is in complete, etc. St.Ack > On Wed, Jun 7, 2017 at 9:52 AM, Stack <st...@duboce.net> wrote: > > > On Wed, Jun 7, 2017 at 8:09 AM, Sean Busbey <bus...@apache.org> wrote: > > > > I liked Josh's question on where is the hbase-2.0 branch and the reminder > > on the Andrew suggestion that we shift release version emphasis left a > > digit. Lets try it in hbase-2. > > > > > > > > > > Thinking about this more, did we document the branching strategy > > anywhere? > > > > > > Like, this is what I expect is going to happen, but it occurs to me > > > that I can't point at why: > > > > > > * branch-2 made off of master > > > * alpha/beta releases tagged off of branch-2 > > > * branch-2.0 made off of branch-2 > > > * 2.0.0 GA release tagged off of branch-2.0 > > > * Follow on minor releases branch-2.y off of branch-2 > > > > > > > Nice writeup Sean. Thats my understanding. Shove it in the refguide? Give > > it a day in case others think it different? > > > > St.Ack > > > > > > -- > Best regards, > > - Andy > > If you are given a choice, you believe you have acted freely. - Raymond > Teller (via Peter Watts) >
