You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.

Posted to dev@ratis.apache.org by Josh Elser <el...@apache.org> on 2018/11/29 22:04:09 UTC

[DISCUSS] Next thirdparty release?

I've just committed some good work by Xiaoyu to re-add the 
netty-tcnative stuff into the thirdparty repo (this was dropped as a 
part of the switch but we had no testing to catch that) via 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/RATIS-383

To keep Ozone rolling, we should start thinking about spinning another 
quick thirdparty release. Should be extremely painless this time. I'm 
happy to RM it.

Two questions:

1. Any other fixes we need in thirdparty that folks have noticed?
2. What version should we call it? 0.1.1 or 0.2.0?

Thank in advance.

- Josh

Re: [DISCUSS] Next thirdparty release?

Posted by Josh Elser <el...@apache.org>.

Alright, thanks all.

I'll spin out an RC today.

On 11/29/18 8:06 PM, Xiaoyu Yao wrote:
> +1 for thirdparty-0.2.0 release.
> 
> On 11/29/18, 4:57 PM, "Jitendra Pandey" <jn...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>      +1, always good to release frequently.
>      Since the jira is already marked for fixed version
>      "thirdparty-0.2.0", 0.2.0 looks is fine.
>      
>      On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 2:04 PM Josh Elser <el...@apache.org> wrote:
>      
>      > I've just committed some good work by Xiaoyu to re-add the
>      > netty-tcnative stuff into the thirdparty repo (this was dropped as a
>      > part of the switch but we had no testing to catch that) via
>      > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/RATIS-383
>      >
>      > To keep Ozone rolling, we should start thinking about spinning another
>      > quick thirdparty release. Should be extremely painless this time. I'm
>      > happy to RM it.
>      >
>      > Two questions:
>      >
>      > 1. Any other fixes we need in thirdparty that folks have noticed?
>      > 2. What version should we call it? 0.1.1 or 0.2.0?
>      >
>      > Thank in advance.
>      >
>      > - Josh
>      >
>      
>

Re: [DISCUSS] Next thirdparty release?

Posted by Xiaoyu Yao <xy...@hortonworks.com>.

+1 for thirdparty-0.2.0 release.

On 11/29/18, 4:57 PM, "Jitendra Pandey" <jn...@gmail.com> wrote:

    +1, always good to release frequently.
    Since the jira is already marked for fixed version
    "thirdparty-0.2.0", 0.2.0 looks is fine.
    
    On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 2:04 PM Josh Elser <el...@apache.org> wrote:
    
    > I've just committed some good work by Xiaoyu to re-add the
    > netty-tcnative stuff into the thirdparty repo (this was dropped as a
    > part of the switch but we had no testing to catch that) via
    > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/RATIS-383
    >
    > To keep Ozone rolling, we should start thinking about spinning another
    > quick thirdparty release. Should be extremely painless this time. I'm
    > happy to RM it.
    >
    > Two questions:
    >
    > 1. Any other fixes we need in thirdparty that folks have noticed?
    > 2. What version should we call it? 0.1.1 or 0.2.0?
    >
    > Thank in advance.
    >
    > - Josh
    >

Re: [DISCUSS] Next thirdparty release?

Posted by Jitendra Pandey <jn...@gmail.com>.

+1, always good to release frequently.
Since the jira is already marked for fixed version
"thirdparty-0.2.0", 0.2.0 looks is fine.

On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 2:04 PM Josh Elser <el...@apache.org> wrote:

> I've just committed some good work by Xiaoyu to re-add the
> netty-tcnative stuff into the thirdparty repo (this was dropped as a
> part of the switch but we had no testing to catch that) via
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/RATIS-383
>
> To keep Ozone rolling, we should start thinking about spinning another
> quick thirdparty release. Should be extremely painless this time. I'm
> happy to RM it.
>
> Two questions:
>
> 1. Any other fixes we need in thirdparty that folks have noticed?
> 2. What version should we call it? 0.1.1 or 0.2.0?
>
> Thank in advance.
>
> - Josh
>