You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@pig.apache.org by Dmitriy Ryaboy <dv...@gmail.com> on 2012/09/23 01:59:13 UTC
Time to branch 0.11?
Hi folks,
Should we branch 0.11?
I don't see anything major left outstanding other than Jon's SchemaTuple
integration work (which is practically ready and can be pushed to both a
branch and trunk), just a few bug fixes here and there.
I'd like to branch before merging in Prasanth's CUBE operator work, since
that's a lot of new code we would want to settle down before releasing, and
should therefore go into 0.12 (in my opinion).
What do you think?
Dmitriy
Re: Time to branch 0.11?
Posted by Eateban Gutierrez <es...@cloudera.com>.
Excellent Dmitriy! Thanks for the info!
cheers!
esteban.
On Sep 23, 2012, at 10:40 AM, Dmitriy Ryaboy <dv...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Esteban, it's in already. Remaining sub-tasks are documentation and more
> testing.
>
> D
>
> On Sun, Sep 23, 2012 at 7:32 AM, Esteban Gutierrez <es...@cloudera.com>wrote:
>
>> +1 (non-binding) and it would be awesome to see PIG-1314 in 0.11 if
>> possible :-)
>>
>> cheers!
>> esteban.
>>
>>
>> --
>> Cloudera, Inc.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Sep 23, 2012 at 1:29 AM, Gianmarco De Francisci Morales <
>> gdfm@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>>> +1
>>> --
>>> Gianmarco
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sun, Sep 23, 2012 at 8:17 AM, Bill Graham <bi...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> +1
>>>>
>>>> On Sat, Sep 22, 2012 at 5:42 PM, Julien Le Dem <ju...@twitter.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> sounds good to me
>>>>> Julien
>>>>>
>>>>> On Sat, Sep 22, 2012 at 4:59 PM, Dmitriy Ryaboy <dv...@gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> Hi folks,
>>>>>> Should we branch 0.11?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I don't see anything major left outstanding other than Jon's
>>>> SchemaTuple
>>>>>> integration work (which is practically ready and can be pushed to
>>> both
>>>> a
>>>>>> branch and trunk), just a few bug fixes here and there.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'd like to branch before merging in Prasanth's CUBE operator work,
>>>> since
>>>>>> that's a lot of new code we would want to settle down before
>>> releasing,
>>>>> and
>>>>>> should therefore go into 0.12 (in my opinion).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What do you think?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Dmitriy
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> *Note that I'm no longer using my Yahoo! email address. Please email me
>>> at
>>>> billgraham@gmail.com going forward.*
>>
Re: Time to branch 0.11?
Posted by Dmitriy Ryaboy <dv...@gmail.com>.
Esteban, it's in already. Remaining sub-tasks are documentation and more
testing.
D
On Sun, Sep 23, 2012 at 7:32 AM, Esteban Gutierrez <es...@cloudera.com>wrote:
> +1 (non-binding) and it would be awesome to see PIG-1314 in 0.11 if
> possible :-)
>
> cheers!
> esteban.
>
>
> --
> Cloudera, Inc.
>
>
>
>
> On Sun, Sep 23, 2012 at 1:29 AM, Gianmarco De Francisci Morales <
> gdfm@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > +1
> > --
> > Gianmarco
> >
> >
> >
> > On Sun, Sep 23, 2012 at 8:17 AM, Bill Graham <bi...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > > +1
> > >
> > > On Sat, Sep 22, 2012 at 5:42 PM, Julien Le Dem <ju...@twitter.com>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > > sounds good to me
> > > > Julien
> > > >
> > > > On Sat, Sep 22, 2012 at 4:59 PM, Dmitriy Ryaboy <dv...@gmail.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > Hi folks,
> > > > > Should we branch 0.11?
> > > > >
> > > > > I don't see anything major left outstanding other than Jon's
> > > SchemaTuple
> > > > > integration work (which is practically ready and can be pushed to
> > both
> > > a
> > > > > branch and trunk), just a few bug fixes here and there.
> > > > >
> > > > > I'd like to branch before merging in Prasanth's CUBE operator work,
> > > since
> > > > > that's a lot of new code we would want to settle down before
> > releasing,
> > > > and
> > > > > should therefore go into 0.12 (in my opinion).
> > > > >
> > > > > What do you think?
> > > > >
> > > > > Dmitriy
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > *Note that I'm no longer using my Yahoo! email address. Please email me
> > at
> > > billgraham@gmail.com going forward.*
> > >
> >
>
Re: Time to branch 0.11?
Posted by Esteban Gutierrez <es...@cloudera.com>.
+1 (non-binding) and it would be awesome to see PIG-1314 in 0.11 if
possible :-)
cheers!
esteban.
--
Cloudera, Inc.
On Sun, Sep 23, 2012 at 1:29 AM, Gianmarco De Francisci Morales <
gdfm@apache.org> wrote:
> +1
> --
> Gianmarco
>
>
>
> On Sun, Sep 23, 2012 at 8:17 AM, Bill Graham <bi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > +1
> >
> > On Sat, Sep 22, 2012 at 5:42 PM, Julien Le Dem <ju...@twitter.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > > sounds good to me
> > > Julien
> > >
> > > On Sat, Sep 22, 2012 at 4:59 PM, Dmitriy Ryaboy <dv...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > > Hi folks,
> > > > Should we branch 0.11?
> > > >
> > > > I don't see anything major left outstanding other than Jon's
> > SchemaTuple
> > > > integration work (which is practically ready and can be pushed to
> both
> > a
> > > > branch and trunk), just a few bug fixes here and there.
> > > >
> > > > I'd like to branch before merging in Prasanth's CUBE operator work,
> > since
> > > > that's a lot of new code we would want to settle down before
> releasing,
> > > and
> > > > should therefore go into 0.12 (in my opinion).
> > > >
> > > > What do you think?
> > > >
> > > > Dmitriy
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > *Note that I'm no longer using my Yahoo! email address. Please email me
> at
> > billgraham@gmail.com going forward.*
> >
>
Re: Time to branch 0.11?
Posted by Gianmarco De Francisci Morales <gd...@apache.org>.
+1
--
Gianmarco
On Sun, Sep 23, 2012 at 8:17 AM, Bill Graham <bi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> +1
>
> On Sat, Sep 22, 2012 at 5:42 PM, Julien Le Dem <ju...@twitter.com> wrote:
>
> > sounds good to me
> > Julien
> >
> > On Sat, Sep 22, 2012 at 4:59 PM, Dmitriy Ryaboy <dv...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > Hi folks,
> > > Should we branch 0.11?
> > >
> > > I don't see anything major left outstanding other than Jon's
> SchemaTuple
> > > integration work (which is practically ready and can be pushed to both
> a
> > > branch and trunk), just a few bug fixes here and there.
> > >
> > > I'd like to branch before merging in Prasanth's CUBE operator work,
> since
> > > that's a lot of new code we would want to settle down before releasing,
> > and
> > > should therefore go into 0.12 (in my opinion).
> > >
> > > What do you think?
> > >
> > > Dmitriy
> >
>
>
>
> --
> *Note that I'm no longer using my Yahoo! email address. Please email me at
> billgraham@gmail.com going forward.*
>
Re: Time to branch 0.11?
Posted by Bill Graham <bi...@gmail.com>.
+1
On Sat, Sep 22, 2012 at 5:42 PM, Julien Le Dem <ju...@twitter.com> wrote:
> sounds good to me
> Julien
>
> On Sat, Sep 22, 2012 at 4:59 PM, Dmitriy Ryaboy <dv...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > Hi folks,
> > Should we branch 0.11?
> >
> > I don't see anything major left outstanding other than Jon's SchemaTuple
> > integration work (which is practically ready and can be pushed to both a
> > branch and trunk), just a few bug fixes here and there.
> >
> > I'd like to branch before merging in Prasanth's CUBE operator work, since
> > that's a lot of new code we would want to settle down before releasing,
> and
> > should therefore go into 0.12 (in my opinion).
> >
> > What do you think?
> >
> > Dmitriy
>
--
*Note that I'm no longer using my Yahoo! email address. Please email me at
billgraham@gmail.com going forward.*
Re: Time to branch 0.11?
Posted by Julien Le Dem <ju...@twitter.com>.
sounds good to me
Julien
On Sat, Sep 22, 2012 at 4:59 PM, Dmitriy Ryaboy <dv...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi folks,
> Should we branch 0.11?
>
> I don't see anything major left outstanding other than Jon's SchemaTuple
> integration work (which is practically ready and can be pushed to both a
> branch and trunk), just a few bug fixes here and there.
>
> I'd like to branch before merging in Prasanth's CUBE operator work, since
> that's a lot of new code we would want to settle down before releasing, and
> should therefore go into 0.12 (in my opinion).
>
> What do you think?
>
> Dmitriy