You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@cassandra.apache.org by Sylvain Lebresne <sy...@datastax.com> on 2016/09/27 10:18:01 UTC
A home for 4.0
We have a number of tickets that we now have to wait on 4.0 due to needing a
messaging protocol change or major sstable format (https://goo.gl/OvqNQp),
and
we currently have no branch for those. And as 4.0 was initially supposed to
come
after 3.11, which is coming, it's probably time to have a home for those
tickets.
And as 4.0 should probably be the 'trunk' (at least it's how we've always
done),
I'm proposing to create a new '3.X' branch from trunk as home for the
remaining
3.x tick-tock release. In that configuration, the merge path will become:
2.1 -> 2.2 -> 3.0 -> 3.X -> trunk (future 4.0)
Any strong objection to me creating that branch?
Sylvain Lebresne
Re: A home for 4.0
Posted by Nate McCall <zz...@gmail.com>.
Thanks Sylvain - since we have a few new folks, can you poke the docs
on committing to include a bit about the merge order?
On Fri, Sep 30, 2016 at 2:56 AM, Michael Shuler <mi...@pbandjelly.org> wrote:
> Thanks! To clarify, yes, I was just being silly. We mostly use the
> base.version in build.xml for version checking and we can special-case
> branch names like we do for trunk, if the needed.
>
> --
> Michael
>
> On 09/29/2016 08:17 AM, Sylvain Lebresne wrote:
>> And of course I've been retarded and created a '3.X' branch with is
>> completely inconsistent with our usual branch naming. So I actually just
>> renamed that to 'cassandra-3.X' instead. I apologize for the inconvenience
>> if any (there hasn't been any commit since I created the branch though, so
>> hopefully nobody was inconvenienced).
>>
>> Again, my bad, but we should be good to go now.
>>
>> On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 10:22 AM, Sylvain Lebresne <sy...@datastax.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> So, this is done now and I've renamed the version on trunk to 4.0, so be
>>> sure to commit/merge to 3.X before going to trunk from now on.
>>>
>>> On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 10:20 AM, Sylvain Lebresne <sy...@datastax.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> As there has been no strong objection, I'm going to proceed and create
>>>> the branch.
>>>>
>>>> Note that I'm discarding Michael remark as a joke due to the use of a
>>>> smiley, but just in case that was a genuine concern, I'll argue that 1)
>>>> 'trunk' isn't really more arithmetic friendly so I don't think there is too
>>>> much reliance on this for branch names out there and 2) I really don't care
>>>> about the branch name, 3.X just feels the more natural, but if something
>>>> thing just calling it '3' or something else would be better, be my guest
>>>> and rename it.
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 2:48 PM, Michael Shuler <mi...@pbandjelly.org>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I foresee many arithmetic errors with 3.X.. :)
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Michael
>>>>>
>>>>> On 09/27/2016 05:18 AM, Sylvain Lebresne wrote:
>>>>>> We have a number of tickets that we now have to wait on 4.0 due to
>>>>> needing a
>>>>>> messaging protocol change or major sstable format (
>>>>> https://goo.gl/OvqNQp),
>>>>>> and
>>>>>> we currently have no branch for those. And as 4.0 was initially
>>>>> supposed to
>>>>>> come
>>>>>> after 3.11, which is coming, it's probably time to have a home for
>>>>> those
>>>>>> tickets.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And as 4.0 should probably be the 'trunk' (at least it's how we've
>>>>> always
>>>>>> done),
>>>>>> I'm proposing to create a new '3.X' branch from trunk as home for the
>>>>>> remaining
>>>>>> 3.x tick-tock release. In that configuration, the merge path will
>>>>> become:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 2.1 -> 2.2 -> 3.0 -> 3.X -> trunk (future 4.0)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Any strong objection to me creating that branch?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sylvain Lebresne
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
Re: A home for 4.0
Posted by Michael Shuler <mi...@pbandjelly.org>.
Thanks! To clarify, yes, I was just being silly. We mostly use the
base.version in build.xml for version checking and we can special-case
branch names like we do for trunk, if the needed.
--
Michael
On 09/29/2016 08:17 AM, Sylvain Lebresne wrote:
> And of course I've been retarded and created a '3.X' branch with is
> completely inconsistent with our usual branch naming. So I actually just
> renamed that to 'cassandra-3.X' instead. I apologize for the inconvenience
> if any (there hasn't been any commit since I created the branch though, so
> hopefully nobody was inconvenienced).
>
> Again, my bad, but we should be good to go now.
>
> On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 10:22 AM, Sylvain Lebresne <sy...@datastax.com>
> wrote:
>
>> So, this is done now and I've renamed the version on trunk to 4.0, so be
>> sure to commit/merge to 3.X before going to trunk from now on.
>>
>> On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 10:20 AM, Sylvain Lebresne <sy...@datastax.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> As there has been no strong objection, I'm going to proceed and create
>>> the branch.
>>>
>>> Note that I'm discarding Michael remark as a joke due to the use of a
>>> smiley, but just in case that was a genuine concern, I'll argue that 1)
>>> 'trunk' isn't really more arithmetic friendly so I don't think there is too
>>> much reliance on this for branch names out there and 2) I really don't care
>>> about the branch name, 3.X just feels the more natural, but if something
>>> thing just calling it '3' or something else would be better, be my guest
>>> and rename it.
>>>
>>> On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 2:48 PM, Michael Shuler <mi...@pbandjelly.org>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I foresee many arithmetic errors with 3.X.. :)
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Michael
>>>>
>>>> On 09/27/2016 05:18 AM, Sylvain Lebresne wrote:
>>>>> We have a number of tickets that we now have to wait on 4.0 due to
>>>> needing a
>>>>> messaging protocol change or major sstable format (
>>>> https://goo.gl/OvqNQp),
>>>>> and
>>>>> we currently have no branch for those. And as 4.0 was initially
>>>> supposed to
>>>>> come
>>>>> after 3.11, which is coming, it's probably time to have a home for
>>>> those
>>>>> tickets.
>>>>>
>>>>> And as 4.0 should probably be the 'trunk' (at least it's how we've
>>>> always
>>>>> done),
>>>>> I'm proposing to create a new '3.X' branch from trunk as home for the
>>>>> remaining
>>>>> 3.x tick-tock release. In that configuration, the merge path will
>>>> become:
>>>>>
>>>>> 2.1 -> 2.2 -> 3.0 -> 3.X -> trunk (future 4.0)
>>>>>
>>>>> Any strong objection to me creating that branch?
>>>>>
>>>>> Sylvain Lebresne
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
Re: A home for 4.0
Posted by Sylvain Lebresne <sy...@datastax.com>.
And of course I've been retarded and created a '3.X' branch with is
completely inconsistent with our usual branch naming. So I actually just
renamed that to 'cassandra-3.X' instead. I apologize for the inconvenience
if any (there hasn't been any commit since I created the branch though, so
hopefully nobody was inconvenienced).
Again, my bad, but we should be good to go now.
On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 10:22 AM, Sylvain Lebresne <sy...@datastax.com>
wrote:
> So, this is done now and I've renamed the version on trunk to 4.0, so be
> sure to commit/merge to 3.X before going to trunk from now on.
>
> On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 10:20 AM, Sylvain Lebresne <sy...@datastax.com>
> wrote:
>
>> As there has been no strong objection, I'm going to proceed and create
>> the branch.
>>
>> Note that I'm discarding Michael remark as a joke due to the use of a
>> smiley, but just in case that was a genuine concern, I'll argue that 1)
>> 'trunk' isn't really more arithmetic friendly so I don't think there is too
>> much reliance on this for branch names out there and 2) I really don't care
>> about the branch name, 3.X just feels the more natural, but if something
>> thing just calling it '3' or something else would be better, be my guest
>> and rename it.
>>
>> On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 2:48 PM, Michael Shuler <mi...@pbandjelly.org>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I foresee many arithmetic errors with 3.X.. :)
>>>
>>> --
>>> Michael
>>>
>>> On 09/27/2016 05:18 AM, Sylvain Lebresne wrote:
>>> > We have a number of tickets that we now have to wait on 4.0 due to
>>> needing a
>>> > messaging protocol change or major sstable format (
>>> https://goo.gl/OvqNQp),
>>> > and
>>> > we currently have no branch for those. And as 4.0 was initially
>>> supposed to
>>> > come
>>> > after 3.11, which is coming, it's probably time to have a home for
>>> those
>>> > tickets.
>>> >
>>> > And as 4.0 should probably be the 'trunk' (at least it's how we've
>>> always
>>> > done),
>>> > I'm proposing to create a new '3.X' branch from trunk as home for the
>>> > remaining
>>> > 3.x tick-tock release. In that configuration, the merge path will
>>> become:
>>> >
>>> > 2.1 -> 2.2 -> 3.0 -> 3.X -> trunk (future 4.0)
>>> >
>>> > Any strong objection to me creating that branch?
>>> >
>>> > Sylvain Lebresne
>>> >
>>>
>>>
>>
>
Re: A home for 4.0
Posted by Sylvain Lebresne <sy...@datastax.com>.
So, this is done now and I've renamed the version on trunk to 4.0, so be
sure to commit/merge to 3.X before going to trunk from now on.
On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 10:20 AM, Sylvain Lebresne <sy...@datastax.com>
wrote:
> As there has been no strong objection, I'm going to proceed and create the
> branch.
>
> Note that I'm discarding Michael remark as a joke due to the use of a
> smiley, but just in case that was a genuine concern, I'll argue that 1)
> 'trunk' isn't really more arithmetic friendly so I don't think there is too
> much reliance on this for branch names out there and 2) I really don't care
> about the branch name, 3.X just feels the more natural, but if something
> thing just calling it '3' or something else would be better, be my guest
> and rename it.
>
> On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 2:48 PM, Michael Shuler <mi...@pbandjelly.org>
> wrote:
>
>> I foresee many arithmetic errors with 3.X.. :)
>>
>> --
>> Michael
>>
>> On 09/27/2016 05:18 AM, Sylvain Lebresne wrote:
>> > We have a number of tickets that we now have to wait on 4.0 due to
>> needing a
>> > messaging protocol change or major sstable format (
>> https://goo.gl/OvqNQp),
>> > and
>> > we currently have no branch for those. And as 4.0 was initially
>> supposed to
>> > come
>> > after 3.11, which is coming, it's probably time to have a home for those
>> > tickets.
>> >
>> > And as 4.0 should probably be the 'trunk' (at least it's how we've
>> always
>> > done),
>> > I'm proposing to create a new '3.X' branch from trunk as home for the
>> > remaining
>> > 3.x tick-tock release. In that configuration, the merge path will
>> become:
>> >
>> > 2.1 -> 2.2 -> 3.0 -> 3.X -> trunk (future 4.0)
>> >
>> > Any strong objection to me creating that branch?
>> >
>> > Sylvain Lebresne
>> >
>>
>>
>
Re: A home for 4.0
Posted by Sylvain Lebresne <sy...@datastax.com>.
As there has been no strong objection, I'm going to proceed and create the
branch.
Note that I'm discarding Michael remark as a joke due to the use of a
smiley, but just in case that was a genuine concern, I'll argue that 1)
'trunk' isn't really more arithmetic friendly so I don't think there is too
much reliance on this for branch names out there and 2) I really don't care
about the branch name, 3.X just feels the more natural, but if something
thing just calling it '3' or something else would be better, be my guest
and rename it.
On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 2:48 PM, Michael Shuler <mi...@pbandjelly.org>
wrote:
> I foresee many arithmetic errors with 3.X.. :)
>
> --
> Michael
>
> On 09/27/2016 05:18 AM, Sylvain Lebresne wrote:
> > We have a number of tickets that we now have to wait on 4.0 due to
> needing a
> > messaging protocol change or major sstable format (https://goo.gl/OvqNQp
> ),
> > and
> > we currently have no branch for those. And as 4.0 was initially supposed
> to
> > come
> > after 3.11, which is coming, it's probably time to have a home for those
> > tickets.
> >
> > And as 4.0 should probably be the 'trunk' (at least it's how we've always
> > done),
> > I'm proposing to create a new '3.X' branch from trunk as home for the
> > remaining
> > 3.x tick-tock release. In that configuration, the merge path will become:
> >
> > 2.1 -> 2.2 -> 3.0 -> 3.X -> trunk (future 4.0)
> >
> > Any strong objection to me creating that branch?
> >
> > Sylvain Lebresne
> >
>
>
Re: A home for 4.0
Posted by Michael Shuler <mi...@pbandjelly.org>.
I foresee many arithmetic errors with 3.X.. :)
--
Michael
On 09/27/2016 05:18 AM, Sylvain Lebresne wrote:
> We have a number of tickets that we now have to wait on 4.0 due to needing a
> messaging protocol change or major sstable format (https://goo.gl/OvqNQp),
> and
> we currently have no branch for those. And as 4.0 was initially supposed to
> come
> after 3.11, which is coming, it's probably time to have a home for those
> tickets.
>
> And as 4.0 should probably be the 'trunk' (at least it's how we've always
> done),
> I'm proposing to create a new '3.X' branch from trunk as home for the
> remaining
> 3.x tick-tock release. In that configuration, the merge path will become:
>
> 2.1 -> 2.2 -> 3.0 -> 3.X -> trunk (future 4.0)
>
> Any strong objection to me creating that branch?
>
> Sylvain Lebresne
>
Re: A home for 4.0
Posted by Aleksey Yeschenko <al...@apache.org>.
WFM
--
AY
On 27 September 2016 at 11:18:33, Sylvain Lebresne (sylvain@datastax.com) wrote:
We have a number of tickets that we now have to wait on 4.0 due to needing a
messaging protocol change or major sstable format (https://goo.gl/OvqNQp),
and
we currently have no branch for those. And as 4.0 was initially supposed to
come
after 3.11, which is coming, it's probably time to have a home for those
tickets.
And as 4.0 should probably be the 'trunk' (at least it's how we've always
done),
I'm proposing to create a new '3.X' branch from trunk as home for the
remaining
3.x tick-tock release. In that configuration, the merge path will become:
2.1 -> 2.2 -> 3.0 -> 3.X -> trunk (future 4.0)
Any strong objection to me creating that branch?
Sylvain Lebresne