Gotcha, make sense, so I will hold commit until you cut the two branches and TSv2 get committed.
Thanks, Wangda On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 11:25 AM, Andrew Wang <andrew.w...@cloudera.com> wrote: > Hi Wangda, > > I'll cut two branches: branch-3.0 (3.0.0-SNAPSHOT) and branch-3.0.0-beta1 > (3.0.0-beta1-SNAPSHOT). This way we can merge GA features to branch-3.0 but > not branch-3.0.0-beta1. > > Best, > Andrew > > On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 11:18 AM, Wangda Tan <wheele...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Vrushali, >> >> Sure we can wait TSv2 merged before merge resource profile branch. >> >> Andrew, >> >> My understanding is you're going to cut branch-3.0 for 3.0-beta1, and the >> same branch (branch-3.0) will be used for 3.0-GA as well. So my question >> is, there're several features (TSv2, resource profile, YARN-5734) are >> targeted to merge to 3.0-GA but not 3.0-beta1, which branch we should >> commit to, and when we can commit? Also, similar to 3.0.0-alpha1 to 4, you >> will cut branch-3.0.0-beta1, correct? >> >> Thanks, >> Wangda >> >> >> On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 11:05 AM, Andrew Wang <andrew.w...@cloudera.com> >> wrote: >> >>> Sure. Ping me when the TSv2 goes in, and I can take care of branching. >>> >>> We're still waiting on the native services and S3Guard merges, but I >>> don't want to hold branching to the last minute. >>> >>> On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 10:51 AM, Vrushali C <vrushalic2...@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Hi Andrew, >>>> As Rohith mentioned, if you are good with it, from the TSv2 side, we >>>> are ready to go for merge tonight itself (Pacific time) right after the >>>> voting period ends. Varun Saxena has been diligently rebasing up until now >>>> so most likely our merge should be reasonably straightforward. >>>> >>>> @Wangda: your resource profile vote ends tomorrow, could we please >>>> coordinate our merges? >>>> >>>> thanks >>>> Vrushali >>>> >>>> >>>> On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 10:45 PM, Rohith Sharma K S < >>>> rohithsharm...@apache.org> wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 29 August 2017 at 06:24, Andrew Wang <andrew.w...@cloudera.com> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> > So far I've seen no -1's to the branching proposal, so I plan to >>>>> execute >>>>> > this tomorrow unless there's further feedback. >>>>> > >>>>> For on going branch merge threads i.e TSv2, voting will be closing >>>>> tomorrow. Does it end up in merging into trunk(3.1.0-SNAPSHOT) and >>>>> branch-3.0(3.0.0-beta1-SNAPSHOT) ? If so, would you be able to wait >>>>> for >>>>> couple of more days before creating branch-3.0 so that TSv2 branch >>>>> merge >>>>> would be done directly to trunk? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> > >>>>> > Regarding the above discussion, I think Jason and I have essentially >>>>> the >>>>> > same opinion. >>>>> > >>>>> > I hope that keeping trunk a release branch means a higher bar for >>>>> merges >>>>> > and code review in general. In the past, I've seen some patches >>>>> committed >>>>> > to trunk-only as a way of passing responsibility to a future user or >>>>> > reviewer. That doesn't help anyone; patches should be committed with >>>>> the >>>>> > intent of running them in production. >>>>> > >>>>> > I'd also like to repeat the above thanks to the many, many >>>>> contributors >>>>> > who've helped with release improvements. Allen's work on >>>>> create-release and >>>>> > automated changes and release notes were essential, as was Xiao's >>>>> work on >>>>> > LICENSE and NOTICE files. I'm also looking forward to Marton's site >>>>> > improvements, which addresses one of the remaining sore spots in the >>>>> > release process. >>>>> > >>>>> > Things have gotten smoother with each alpha we've done over the last >>>>> year, >>>>> > and it's a testament to everyone's work that we have a good >>>>> probability of >>>>> > shipping beta and GA later this year. >>>>> > >>>>> > Cheers, >>>>> > Andrew >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >> >
