Branches make sense where you are going to be making more changes along that same line. A branch for 4.0.0 implies that you are going to release a 4.0.0.1, 4.0.0.2, etc. (at least to me).
By having a 4.0 branch, you *more* lean towards semantic versioning because along that same branch you can easily release 4.0.1, 4.0.2, etc. and just mark them with tags. When you are ready for the 4.1 jump (enough big, but not breaking, features), you can cut a new branch off the 4.0 series as 4.1* and continue to tag the point releases in each line as needed (say the 4.0.X series needed a point release, this allows you to easily track that state). --j ------------------- Jesse Yates @jesse_yates jyates.github.com On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 4:03 PM, lars hofhansl <[email protected]> wrote: > Personally I'd be in favor of 4.0.0 as this conveys the fact that we do > semantic versioning. > As usually I do not feel strongly about this. > > -- Lars > > > ________________________________ > From: James Taylor <[email protected]> > To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> > Sent: Monday, February 10, 2014 3:50 PM > Subject: Re: Branch 4.0.0 is created for Phoenix on HBase0.98 > > > Sure, 4.0 is fine. I think we can just tag our minor and point releases > instead of creating branches for them. > > > > On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 3:41 PM, Jeffrey Zhong <[email protected] > >wrote: > > > > > James, how do you think the branch name 4.0 over 4.0.0? It mostly depends > > on the naming convention. 4.0 seems better > > unless in the future we have branch like 4.0.1(or 4.0.##) > > > > > If you set up a job building against HBase trunk snapshots (and > > HBase remembers to publish those then > > > Jenkins can catch any incompatibilities accidentally introduced > > going forward. > > > > > > I like the above idea so that we can catch interface changes as earlier > as > > possible. > > > > > > On 2/10/14 2:33 PM, "James Taylor" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > >+1. That's a very good idea, Enis - for HBase 1.0 if possible. > > > > > > > > >On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 2:28 PM, Enis Söztutar <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > >> Forgot to mention, there was some discussion about filter / > coprocessors > > >> versus plugins. It seems that coprocessors are doing both more > > >>user-facing > > >> database trigger kind of functionality + some plugging into Hbase > > >>internals > > >> functionality. I think longer term, we should define different > > >>interfaces > > >> for some pluggable functionality (see recent StorageEngine, > Compaction, > > >> Flush, HLog, etc) and keep coprocessors more simple. This was plugins > > >>would > > >> be the supported way to extend HBase, and the interfaces would be more > > >> stable. > > >> > > >> > > >> On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 2:23 PM, Enis Söztutar <[email protected]> > > >>wrote: > > >> > > >> > Awesome work Jeffrey. > > >> > > > >> > Should we name the branch 4.0, instead of 4.0.0? > > >> > > > >> > It would be good to have a list of methods used by Phoenix to be > > >> > identified and tagged in HBase so that at least future changes are > not > > >> > completely random. We might start with annotation > > >> > InterfaceAudience.LimitedPrivate, so that HBase devs will be more > > >> careful. > > >> > However, we should also try to make Phoenix not so far-reaching into > > >> HBase > > >> > internals as well. > > >> > > > >> > Enis > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 2:16 PM, Andrew Purtell < > [email protected] > > >> >wrote: > > >> > > > >> >> On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 2:07 PM, James Taylor < > > [email protected] > > >> >> >wrote: > > >> >> > > >> >> > Mujtaba - would it be > > >> >> > feasible to setup Jenkins builds for this branch as well? > > >> >> > > > >> >> > > >> >> Or, HBase 0.98 is really close to HBase trunk still. If you set up > a > > >>job > > >> >> building against HBase trunk snapshots (and HBase remembers to > > >>publish > > >> >> those...) then Jenkins can catch any incompatibilities accidentally > > >> >> introduced going forward. > > >> >> > > >> >> -- > > >> >> Best regards, > > >> >> > > >> >> - Andy > > >> >> > > >> >> Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet > > >>Hein > > >> >> (via Tom White) > > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > -- > > CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE > > NOTICE: This message is intended for the use of the individual or entity > to > > which it is addressed and may contain information that is confidential, > > privileged and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader > > of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified > that > > any printing, copying, dissemination, distribution, disclosure or > > forwarding of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have > > received this communication in error, please contact the sender > immediately > > and delete it from your system. Thank You. > > >
