sqoop-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Abraham Elmahrek <...@cloudera.com>
Subject Re: SQOOP-1367 Branch
Date Tue, 15 Jul 2014 17:37:47 GMT
Thanks guys! Are there any committers that want to create the branch for
me? I suppose we could use its Jira number (SQOOP-1367) as its name.


On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 9:45 PM, David Robson <
David.Robson@software.dell.com> wrote:

> Abe,
>
> I am not working on Sqoop2 - so while this won't affect me directly, I
> personally prefer new features to be done on a separate topic branch then
> merged in once they are stable - so I would +1 your idea.
>
> David
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jarek Jarcec Cecho [mailto:jarcec@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Jarek
> Jarcec Cecho
> Sent: Tuesday, 15 July 2014 1:24 PM
> To: dev@sqoop.apache.org
> Subject: Re: SQOOP-1367 Branch
>
> + 0 from my side :-)
>
> Jarcec
>
> On Jul 14, 2014, at 2:32 PM, Hari Shreedharan <hshreedharan@cloudera.com>
> wrote:
>
> > +1 for me :)
> >
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Hari
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Jul 14, 2014, at 2:24 PM, Abraham Elmahrek <abe@cloudera.com> wrote:
> >
> >> We would likely comment out all the tests, which could bring about
> >> other forms of instability if there were other developers working on
> >> other things (without tests). I do believe that there will always be
> >> development on Sqoop2.
> >>
> >> Jarcec, is that a 0, -1, or +1?
> >>
> >> -Abe
> >>
> >>
> >> On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 8:48 PM, Jarek Jarcec Cecho
> >> <jarcec@apache.org>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> I would see reason to create separate branch if we would be doing
> >>> some new and possibly breaking feature while working on smaller
> >>> features on the main line with possibility to cut release before the
> >>> new big thing is done. As
> >>> SQOOP-1367 seems important enough to finish prior any additional
> >>> Sqoop 2 release nor other bigger features, I would be personally
> >>> fine with destabilizing the sqoop2 branch and simply do all the
> drastic changes there.
> >>>
> >>> Jarcec
> >>>
> >>> On Jul 10, 2014, at 8:03 PM, Gwen Shapira <gshapira@cloudera.com>
> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Good idea to work on drastic changes in a separate branch.
> >>>>
> >>>> Gwen
> >>>>
> >>>> On Jul 10, 2014 3:00 PM, "Abraham Elmahrek" <abe@apache.org> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> Dev folks,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> SQOOP-1367 requires drastic changes to the Sqoop2 code base and
> >>>>> will
> >>> likely
> >>>>> bring some level of instability for a short period of time. Could
> >>>>> we
> >>> create
> >>>>> a separate branch for SQOOP-1367 development? Here are a few
> >>>>> reasons why this seems like a good idea:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>  - Since releases are built from the "sqoop2" branch, it seems
> >>>>> like it  should be stable.
> >>>>>  - We could disable and enable tests freely as this branches
> >>>>> stability
> >>> is
> >>>>>  not as important.
> >>>>>  - Chunking work up will become a lot easier since we would not
> >>>>> care if  this branch immediately works. This will make code
> >>>>> reviews much
> >>> easier.
> >>>>>  - SQOOP-1367 is a core change to Sqoop2. It will touch several
> >>>>> files
> >>> and
> >>>>>  reshape the shape of jobs.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> -Abe
> >>>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >
>
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message