The build check in HIVE-8933 fixed in HIVE-8845. On Mon, Feb 9, 2015 at 11:32 AM, Vikram Dixit K <vikram.di...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Ed, > > This was the case with 0.14. It was fixed before 1.0 went out in HIVE-8933. > > Thanks > Vikram. > > On Mon, Feb 9, 2015 at 9:08 AM, Alan Gates <alanfga...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> That's fixed, correct? I do not believe there were any SNAPSHOT >> dependencies in 1.0. >> >> Alan. >> >> Edward Capriolo <edlinuxg...@gmail.com> >> February 9, 2015 at 8:40 >> Because we can not really have a stable api if by definition we build >> around snapshot dependencies. >> >> On Mon, Feb 9, 2015 at 11:38 AM, Edward Capriolo <edlinuxg...@gmail.com> >> <edlinuxg...@gmail.com> >> >> Edward Capriolo <edlinuxg...@gmail.com> >> February 9, 2015 at 8:38 >> Question. >> >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HIVE-8614 >> >> Did we not just agree in this thread that hive will no long have >> dependency >> that are SNAPSHOT? >> >> >> Brock Noland <br...@cloudera.com> >> January 22, 2015 at 22:06 >> Hi Alan, >> >> I agree with Xuefu and what was suggested in your statement. I was >> thinking we'd release the next release as 0.15 and then later there >> would be 1.0 off trunk (e.g. what would have been 0.16) and thus be >> superset (minus anything we intentionally remove). >> >> As I have said several times, I'd like to release more often so I feel >> we could even start the 1.0 work shortly after the 0.15 release. For >> my part, I do agree with some earlier contributor/user sentiment that >> it would be good to have some basic public API defined for 1.0. I >> don't think that will be too hard as it's more or less obvious what >> our public API is today. >> >> Hope this seems reasonable. >> >> Cheers, >> Brock >> Xuefu Zhang <xzh...@cloudera.com> >> January 22, 2015 at 12:31 >> Hi Thejas/Alan, >> >> From all the argument, I think there was an assumption that the proposed >> 1.0 release will be imminent and 0.15 will happen far after that. Based on >> that assumption, 0.15 will become 1.1, which is greater in scope than 1.0. >> However, this assumption may not be true. The confusion will be >> significant >> if 0.15 is released early as 0.15 before 0.14.1 is released as 1.0. >> >> Another concern is that, the proposed release of 1.0 is a subset of of >> Hive's functionality, and for major releases users are expecting major >> improvement in functionality as well as stability. Mutating from 0.14.1 >> release seems falling short in that expectation. >> >> Having said that, I'd think it makes more sense to release 0.15 as 0.15, >> and later we release 1.0 as the major release that supersedes any previous >> releases. That will fulfill the expectations of a major release. >> >> Thanks, >> Xuefu >> >> >> Alan Gates <ga...@hortonworks.com> >> January 22, 2015 at 12:12 >> I had one clarifying question for Brock and Xuefu. Was your proposal to >> still call the branch from trunk you are planning in a few days 0.15 (and >> hence release it as 0.15) and have 1.0 be a later release? Or did you want >> to call what is now 0.15 1.0? If you wanted 1.0 to be post 0.15, are you >> ok with stipulating that the next release from trunk after 0.15 (what would >> have been 0.16) is 1.0? >> >> Alan. >> >> > > > -- > Nothing better than when appreciated for hard work. > -Mark > -- Nothing better than when appreciated for hard work. -Mark
