Just a quick update with where I am with your RC1 feedback. First, let me
thank you for all of the feedback - it has been great for Impala, in my
opinion.

Here is a list of things that I am still planning to do for RC2:

1. Change the tarball name to remove the '-rc1'; instead, I will put the
next tarball, checksums, and signature into an 'rc2' directory.

2. Change the tarball so it unpacks into apache-impala-incubating-2.7.0.

3. Fix some 'Cloudera' licensing: pending at
https://gerrit.cloudera.org/#/c/4386/

4. Make buildall.sh work when not in a git repo: CI verification happening
at https://gerrit.cloudera.org/#/c/4336/

5. Version numbering: Apparently it is a problem for Cloudera downstream if
the version doesn't have the string 'cdh5'. If they (with my Apache hat on)
/ we (with my Cloudera hat on) can't fix this ASAP, I will change the
version string in the 2.7.0 branch (though not on master) and let Cloudera
deal with whatever Cloudera problems there are.

6. Git tag (and provide a git SHA for) the next RC

7. Get a clean RAT run: in progress at
https://gerrit.cloudera.org/#/c/4361/2 . This may take a while as I sort
out the testdata/data/mstr and /tests/comparison/leopard directories.

On Fri, Sep 9, 2016 at 11:52 AM, Jim Apple <jbap...@cloudera.com> wrote:

> >> - would be nice if the version number didn't have 'cdh5' in it (eg
> >> impala-shell-2.7.0-cdh5-INTERNAL, seems to come from bin/version.info,
> >> bin/save-version.sh, etc). Should probably be '2.7.0-incubating'
> >
> > Lars is working on this now:
> >
> > https://gerrit.cloudera.org/#/c/4187/3
> >
> > Some possibilities for 2.7.0:
> >
> > 1. Leave it. Pros: expedient; Cons: inaccurate, not Apache
> >
> > 2. Wait until we can change this is master without confusing existing
> > tools. Pros: clean; Cons: delay in releasing
> >
> > 3. Make a commit just to branch-2.7.0. Pros: Doesn't confuse existing
> > tools; Cons: Makes branch-2.7.0 not a pure subset of master.
> >
> > What does everyone think?
>
> Just a reminder that your input on this is valued. I slightly prefer #3.
>

Reply via email to