Thanks man!
On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 10:54 AM, Jarek Jarcec Cecho <jar...@apache.org> wrote: > 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 > >>>>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>> > >> > >> > >
