Done: https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=sqoop.git;a=shortlog;h=refs/heads/SQOOP-1367
jarcec On Jul 15, 2014, at 10:37 AM, Abraham Elmahrek <a...@cloudera.com> wrote: > Thanks guys! Are there any committers that want to create the branch for > me? I suppose we could use its Jira number (SQOOP-1367) as its name. > > > On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 9:45 PM, David Robson < > david.rob...@software.dell.com> wrote: > >> Abe, >> >> I am not working on Sqoop2 - so while this won't affect me directly, I >> personally prefer new features to be done on a separate topic branch then >> merged in once they are stable - so I would +1 your idea. >> >> David >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Jarek Jarcec Cecho [mailto:jar...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Jarek >> Jarcec Cecho >> Sent: Tuesday, 15 July 2014 1:24 PM >> To: dev@sqoop.apache.org >> Subject: Re: SQOOP-1367 Branch >> >> + 0 from my side :-) >> >> Jarcec >> >> On Jul 14, 2014, at 2:32 PM, Hari Shreedharan <hshreedha...@cloudera.com> >> wrote: >> >>> +1 for me :) >>> >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Hari >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Jul 14, 2014, at 2:24 PM, Abraham Elmahrek <a...@cloudera.com> wrote: >>> >>>> We would likely comment out all the tests, which could bring about >>>> other forms of instability if there were other developers working on >>>> other things (without tests). I do believe that there will always be >>>> development on Sqoop2. >>>> >>>> Jarcec, is that a 0, -1, or +1? >>>> >>>> -Abe >>>> >>>> >>>> On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 8:48 PM, Jarek Jarcec Cecho >>>> <jar...@apache.org> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> I would see reason to create separate branch if we would be doing >>>>> some new and possibly breaking feature while working on smaller >>>>> features on the main line with possibility to cut release before the >>>>> new big thing is done. As >>>>> SQOOP-1367 seems important enough to finish prior any additional >>>>> Sqoop 2 release nor other bigger features, I would be personally >>>>> fine with destabilizing the sqoop2 branch and simply do all the >> drastic changes there. >>>>> >>>>> Jarcec >>>>> >>>>> On Jul 10, 2014, at 8:03 PM, Gwen Shapira <gshap...@cloudera.com> >> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Good idea to work on drastic changes in a separate branch. >>>>>> >>>>>> Gwen >>>>>> >>>>>> On Jul 10, 2014 3:00 PM, "Abraham Elmahrek" <a...@apache.org> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Dev folks, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> SQOOP-1367 requires drastic changes to the Sqoop2 code base and >>>>>>> will >>>>> likely >>>>>>> bring some level of instability for a short period of time. Could >>>>>>> we >>>>> create >>>>>>> a separate branch for SQOOP-1367 development? Here are a few >>>>>>> reasons why this seems like a good idea: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> - Since releases are built from the "sqoop2" branch, it seems >>>>>>> like it should be stable. >>>>>>> - We could disable and enable tests freely as this branches >>>>>>> stability >>>>> is >>>>>>> not as important. >>>>>>> - Chunking work up will become a lot easier since we would not >>>>>>> care if this branch immediately works. This will make code >>>>>>> reviews much >>>>> easier. >>>>>>> - SQOOP-1367 is a core change to Sqoop2. It will touch several >>>>>>> files >>>>> and >>>>>>> reshape the shape of jobs. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -Abe >>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>> >> >>
