inding +1
>
> Joep
>
> From: Eli Collins [e...@cloudera.com]
> Sent: Thursday, September 15, 2011 2:06 PM
> To: common-dev@hadoop.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] Two Jira infrastructure additions to support
> sustaining bug fixes
>
> On Thu, Sep
Non-binding +1
Joep
From: Eli Collins [e...@cloudera.com]
Sent: Thursday, September 15, 2011 2:06 PM
To: common-dev@hadoop.apache.org
Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] Two Jira infrastructure additions to support sustaining
bug fixes
On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 1:44
On 15/09/2011 19:58, Matt Foley wrote:
Hi all,
for better or worse, the Hadoop community works in multiple branches. We
have to do sustaining work on 0.20, even while we hope that 0.23 will
finally replace it. Even after that happens, we will then need to do
sustaining releases on 0.23 while fu
On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 1:44 PM, Matt Foley wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 1:20 PM, Eli Collins wrote:
>
>> Hey Matt,
>>
>> Thanks for the proposal, agree we should sort these out.
>>
>> Wrt #1 IIUC the new workflow would be to use Target Version like we
>> use Fix Version today, but only set t
+1. I faced the same problems while doing the 0.20-append branch.
thanks
dhruba
On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 11:58 AM, Matt Foley wrote:
> Hi all,
> for better or worse, the Hadoop community works in multiple branches. We
> have to do sustaining work on 0.20, even while we hope that 0.23 will
> fin
+1 great suggestions to dev process
On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 1:58 PM, Matt Foley wrote:
> Hi all,
> for better or worse, the Hadoop community works in multiple branches. We
> have to do sustaining work on 0.20, even while we hope that 0.23 will
> finally replace it. Even after that happens, we
+1 for this combination.
Kihwal
On 9/15/11 3:33 PM, "Suresh Srinivas" wrote:
Matt,
+1 for Target Version field. +1 for naming convention for the jira patch
attachments.
Regards,
Suresh
On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 11:58 AM, Matt Foley wrote:
> Hi all,
> for better or worse, the Hadoop community
On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 1:20 PM, Eli Collins wrote:
> Hey Matt,
>
> Thanks for the proposal, agree we should sort these out.
>
> Wrt #1 IIUC the new workflow would be to use Target Version like we
> use Fix Version today, but only set the Fix Version when we actually
> commit to the given branch
Matt,
+1 for Target Version field. +1 for naming convention for the jira patch
attachments.
Regards,
Suresh
On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 11:58 AM, Matt Foley wrote:
> Hi all,
> for better or worse, the Hadoop community works in multiple branches. We
> have to do sustaining work on 0.20, even while
Hey Matt,
Thanks for the proposal, agree we should sort these out.
Wrt #1 IIUC the new workflow would be to use Target Version like we
use Fix Version today, but only set the Fix Version when we actually
commit to the given branch for the release. Seems reasonable.
Definitely better than creating
Hi all,
for better or worse, the Hadoop community works in multiple branches. We
have to do sustaining work on 0.20, even while we hope that 0.23 will
finally replace it. Even after that happens, we will then need to do
sustaining releases on 0.23 while future development goes into 0.24 or 0.25,
11 matches
Mail list logo
