You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@hbase.apache.org by Josh Elser <el...@apache.org> on 2016/11/17 18:03:11 UTC

Branch off of master for HDFS space quota work? (HBASE-16961)

Hi folks,

I've gotten far enough along that I have some confidence in what I 
worked on early on in the feature is actually sensible. As such, I'd 
like to start working through the review process of each incremental bit 
of work (the child issues).

As each child issue is reviewed, it would be nice to land it somewhere. 
Any opinions on setting up a feature branch for this? Still the desired 
approach? Asking for branch committer privileges could also be a 
follow-on question (assuming the feature-branch is agreed upon) to avoid 
more work on you fine people ;)

- Josh

Re: Branch off of master for HDFS space quota work? (HBASE-16961)

Posted by Ted Yu <yu...@gmail.com>.
I have created HBASE-16961 branch.

Cheers

On Thu, Nov 17, 2016 at 10:40 AM, Stephen Jiang <sy...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> +1 on feature branch.  Good way to do it while keeping master branch
> stable.
>
> On Thu, Nov 17, 2016 at 10:07 AM, Ted Yu <yu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > +1 on creating a feature branch (namely HBASE-16961).
> >
> > The number of child issues is not high at this moment.
> >
> > I would be happy to merge ready patches into this branch.
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> > On Thu, Nov 17, 2016 at 10:03 AM, Josh Elser <el...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> > > Hi folks,
> > >
> > > I've gotten far enough along that I have some confidence in what I
> worked
> > > on early on in the feature is actually sensible. As such, I'd like to
> > start
> > > working through the review process of each incremental bit of work (the
> > > child issues).
> > >
> > > As each child issue is reviewed, it would be nice to land it somewhere.
> > > Any opinions on setting up a feature branch for this? Still the desired
> > > approach? Asking for branch committer privileges could also be a
> > follow-on
> > > question (assuming the feature-branch is agreed upon) to avoid more
> work
> > on
> > > you fine people ;)
> > >
> > > - Josh
> > >
> >
>

Re: Branch off of master for HDFS space quota work? (HBASE-16961)

Posted by Stephen Jiang <sy...@gmail.com>.
+1 on feature branch.  Good way to do it while keeping master branch stable.

On Thu, Nov 17, 2016 at 10:07 AM, Ted Yu <yu...@gmail.com> wrote:

> +1 on creating a feature branch (namely HBASE-16961).
>
> The number of child issues is not high at this moment.
>
> I would be happy to merge ready patches into this branch.
>
> Thanks
>
> On Thu, Nov 17, 2016 at 10:03 AM, Josh Elser <el...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > Hi folks,
> >
> > I've gotten far enough along that I have some confidence in what I worked
> > on early on in the feature is actually sensible. As such, I'd like to
> start
> > working through the review process of each incremental bit of work (the
> > child issues).
> >
> > As each child issue is reviewed, it would be nice to land it somewhere.
> > Any opinions on setting up a feature branch for this? Still the desired
> > approach? Asking for branch committer privileges could also be a
> follow-on
> > question (assuming the feature-branch is agreed upon) to avoid more work
> on
> > you fine people ;)
> >
> > - Josh
> >
>

Re: Branch off of master for HDFS space quota work? (HBASE-16961)

Posted by Ted Yu <yu...@gmail.com>.
+1 on creating a feature branch (namely HBASE-16961).

The number of child issues is not high at this moment.

I would be happy to merge ready patches into this branch.

Thanks

On Thu, Nov 17, 2016 at 10:03 AM, Josh Elser <el...@apache.org> wrote:

> Hi folks,
>
> I've gotten far enough along that I have some confidence in what I worked
> on early on in the feature is actually sensible. As such, I'd like to start
> working through the review process of each incremental bit of work (the
> child issues).
>
> As each child issue is reviewed, it would be nice to land it somewhere.
> Any opinions on setting up a feature branch for this? Still the desired
> approach? Asking for branch committer privileges could also be a follow-on
> question (assuming the feature-branch is agreed upon) to avoid more work on
> you fine people ;)
>
> - Josh
>