I forked the thread, because it is not really about the release vote any more, although we both seem to be on the same page so this may be overkill :)
On 9/10/12 3:50 PM, "Owen O'Malley" <omal...@apache.org> wrote: >On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 12:19 PM, Robert Evans <ev...@yahoo-inc.com> >wrote: >> Thanks for the info Owen I was not aware of that, I can see at the >> beginning of the twiki >> http://wiki.apache.org/hadoop/HowToReleasePostMavenization that it is >>kind >> of implied by the skip this section comment. But, I was just confused >> because to do an official release I need to change the version number in >> several different places, and I didn¹t think that is was all that kosher >> to do that directly in the tags area. > >Please don't make edits in the tags area. Totally concur on that. > >> It also seems to be a bit different >> then what is happening on branch-2. > >Branch 2 also has issues, which we've also been ironing out. The >branch-2.0.1-alpha and branch-2.0.2-alpha will be deleted soon. Sounds good. > >> I was planning on deleting the branch once the vote for 0.23.3 finished, > >That would be fine. > >> but I can delete it now if you would prefer and the roll back the >>version >> numbers on branch-0.23 to be 0.23.3? Or would it be 0.23.3-SNAPSHOT >>still? > >You can wait for 0.23.3 to clean up. The only odd part of that is that >the 0.23.3 tag won't be on the branch-0.23. Yes that is ugly. I agree. > >With Ant, we could just override the version on the command line. >Clearly Maven is a little pickier. You could: >1. Set the version to 0.23.3 >2. Check in >3. Make the tag >4. Set the version to 0.23.4-SNAPSHOT >5. Check in > >I'd also be ok with just waiting with 4+5 until the vote passes. >Thoughts? (Of course as discussed this would be more about 0.23.4 :) ) I am fine with either way. If we do go all they way to 5 and there are blockers that force a re-spin of the RC then we are back to creating a new branch off of the original tag to make changes and we get a tag that is not off of branch-X.Y. But, if we don't go all the way to 5 then the branch must stay locked for a week, which is not the end of the world, but in some cases will slow down development a little. It is a balancing game, but I don't see major drawbacks to either situation. > >> I also want to be sure that we want to not allow anyone to check >>anything >> in for a week+ on branch-0.23. There are a few things I know of that >>are >> almost ready but are not Blockers. > >Sure. That makes sense. > >-- Owen --Bobby
