We have our 3.0 branch. I agree too, having three branches is a good model. I propose we delay creating a branch for 4.0 as long as we can, so that we only have two branches for as long as possible. It's likely that no new feature work will be done until after we've shipped 3.0 and 4.0.
Speaking of releases, how about a few more votes for our 2.2.3 release? Thanks, James On Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 7:25 PM, Andrew Purtell <[email protected]>wrote: > +1 > > HBase could conceivably make changes in 0.98 that would cause a 3.0 (0.96) > and a 4.0 (0.98) branch to diverge a bit. That's an outside chance - > something to be avoided on the HBase side - but it seems reasonable to > future proof against that possibility. > > > On Mar 7, 2014, at 9:39 AM, Enis Söztutar <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > +1 on Jeffrey's plan. > > > > We probably want to have feature parity between 3.0 and 4.0, that is why > it > > makes sense to have 3 active branches, rather than have only master as > 4.0. > > This way we can ensure that all features in 3.x will be there in 4.x, the > > only difference will be about the supported HBase version. The master > > branch will be a place to commit new features, while 3.x and 4.x will be > > stabilizing over time. > > > > All bug fixes can go to 3 branches, new features only go to the master > > branch. > > > > Enis > > > > > > On Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 5:01 PM, Jeffrey Zhong <[email protected] > >wrote: > > > >> > >> +1 > >> > >> Could we do the following? > >> > >> 1) Merge all the changes from master till the point we branch off 3.0 > into > >> 4.0 branch > >> 2) Merge 4.0 branch back to Master > >> 3) Bump up Master branch version to 4.1.0 > >> 4) Developers need check in new features into master branch always and > >> fixes to all three branches similar as how a change is checked into > Hbase > >> 0.94, HBase0.98 & Trunk branch. > >> > >> So when we release 3.0 for HBase0.94+, we can also release 4.0 for > >> hbase0.98+ because they're feature equavelent. > >> > >> Thanks, > >> -Jeffrey > >> > >> > >>> On 3/6/14 3:46 PM, "Jesse Yates" <[email protected]> wrote: > >>> > >>> +1 > >>> > >>> ------------------- > >>> Jesse Yates > >>> @jesse_yates > >>> jyates.github.com > >>> > >>> > >>> On Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 3:43 PM, James Taylor <[email protected]> > >>> wrote: > >>> > >>>> Hey All, > >>>> I'd like to branch master to 3.0 so that 4.0 can become the master > >>>> branch. > >>>> There are a couple of outstanding changes that I'd like to complete > >>>> today, > >>>> but if there are no objections, I'd like to cut this branch tonight. > >>>> After > >>>> this point and after Jeffrey catches 4.0 up to 3.0, developers will > >>>> need to > >>>> check in their fixes to both the 3.0 branch and master. > >>>> > >>>> As soon as the remaining critical bugs are fixed, I'd like to cut an > RC > >>>> for > >>>> a 3.0 release. > >>>> > >>>> Please let me know if you have any comments or objections. > >>>> > >>>> Thanks! > >>>> James > >> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> 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. > >> >
