Re: [VOTE] Should we define the Common committers as HDFS + MapReduce committers?

2010-08-23 Thread Owen O'Malley
On Aug 20, 2010, at 2:46 PM, Chris Douglas wrote: The vote passes. Ok, I've removed the common committer list and replaced it with the union of the HDFS and MapReduce committer lists. -- Owen

Branching and testing strategy for 0.22

2010-08-23 Thread Owen O'Malley
I'd like to get started testing 0.22. I plan to start making mini-branches for QA. These branches will be snapshots that QA can use for testing with an expected lifetime of two weeks each. Only bug fixes that are blocking QA will be applied to the mini-branches and every two weeks, the

Re: Branching and testing strategy for 0.22

2010-08-23 Thread Allen Wittenauer
On Aug 23, 2010, at 3:19 PM, Owen O'Malley wrote: Are there any concerns? Just that 0.21 isn't even out of RC yet and that patches to fix it may get missed.

Re: Branching and testing strategy for 0.22

2010-08-23 Thread Aaron Kimball
Would it be worthwhile to give branches unique, persistent names? branch-0.22-qa1, branch-0.22-qa2, etc. Then problems in a later incarnation of the QA branch could be regression-tested against the previous one. Your point about automated builds is, however, noted. If this were git, branch-0.22

Re: Branching and testing strategy for 0.22

2010-08-23 Thread Doug Cutting
On 08/23/2010 03:19 PM, Owen O'Malley wrote: To simplify automated builds, I'll call the branch the final name of branch-0.22. But it will be rebased every two weeks or so. Are there any concerns? Since this will be used differently than what we've in the past named 'branch-${version},

Re: Branching and testing strategy for 0.22

2010-08-23 Thread Konstantin Boudnik
If I may... why QA need source code branches rather than a sequential builds from the trunk (as it usually done)? Say: - build qa1 is cut - QA works on it and finds issues - issues are reported against build qa1 - dev fixes some issues and mark them appropriately - build qa2 is cut - QA

Re: Branching and testing strategy for 0.22

2010-08-23 Thread Owen O'Malley
On Aug 23, 2010, at 3:26 PM, Aaron Kimball wrote: Would it be worthwhile to give branches unique, persistent names? I don't think so. Of course the old branches will always be there under the old revision. But it will be convenient to be able to do svn up on the given branch and have it

Re: Branching and testing strategy for 0.22

2010-08-23 Thread Vinod KV
My first thought was also inline with Cos's. Any background we are missing about this? +vinod On Tuesday 24 August 2010 04:47 AM, Konstantin Boudnik wrote: If I may... why QA need source code branches rather than a sequential builds from the trunk (as it usually done)? Say: - build qa1