hbase-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Andrew Purtell <apurt...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Thinking about 0.98
Date Fri, 16 Aug 2013 00:57:50 GMT
> My suggestion is that we limit the number of major features targeting
this version.

+1

> Can we say Tags the only Major feature that must get in and then all
major features are not blockers?

Core changes, you mean? One or perhaps two significant core changes could
be doable in the available time. Is there another besides tags/HFile V3?

What I would consider a blocker would be a usability problem, a performance
regression, or an API, wire, or data compatibility regression.

In my opinion, a new feature should be implemented within a well defined
space for that purpose: as a coprocessor, plugin, or as a feature of HFile
V3 (which I would like to make more pluggable, therefore extensible and
maintainable). I propose HFile V3 be included, marked as experimental
through the 0.98 cycle, with a feature freeze at the .0 release.

> What do you think our planned 0.96 compat story is wrt 0.98?

0.96 and 0.98 should be able to run in a mixed server side environment
while a rolling upgrade is in progress, without limits imposed on how long
that might take. Perhaps 0.98 is deployed only to one table placement group
as a trial. With the caveat that new features might introduce
complications, continuing the example, a new HFile feature is enabled for a
table and placement group so the table can't be placed elsewhere. Clients
should be able to run in a mixed version environment indefinitely.


On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 1:25 PM, Jonathan Hsieh <jon@cloudera.com> wrote:

> On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 12:21 PM, Andrew Purtell <apurtell@apache.org
> >wrote:
>
> > On the thread '[UPDATE] Finishing up 0.96 --> WAS Re: 0.95 and 0.96
> > remaining issues', Stack, our RM for 0.95/0.96 has drawn the line on a
> > feature freeze and set a course for an 0.96 release to happen soon.
> Toward
> > the end of that thread there is a bit on beyond 0.96 that I have included
> > below for your reference. To summarize the discussion points:
> >
> > - This is a call for an 0.98 major release in early October. Let's
> discuss
> > first if that timeframe is reasonable, and then what can and should go
> into
> > a new major release in this timeframe.
> >
> > +1
>
> My suggestion is that we limit the number of major features targeting this
> version.  Can we say Tags the only Major feature that must get in and then
> all major features are not blockers?
>
> What do you think our planned 0.96 compat story is wrt 0.98?  This would be
> a great opportunity to try see if the protobuf evolution path is what we
> hope it is.
>
>
>
> > - I have volunteered to manage this release. Let's discuss if there are
> > concerns or objections to that.
> >
> > +1
>
>
> > Assuming there are no objections, in a few days I will adjust target
> > versions for 0.98 in JIRA, file any new issues as needed, and then post a
> > summary here. I suggest looking at 0.98 through the lens of being the
> last
> > release before the big 1.0 event. Therefore, what should go in are things
> > that almost made the 0.96 cut, and "1.0 necessary" features that, first,
> > should be in a 1.0 product, and, second, could benefit from one release
> > cycle to bake. Once there is an 0.98 major release, I also suggest a
> > regular train of minor releases like what Lars has done for 0.94. Also, I
> > don't think it necessary to decide today if a 0.98 release should become
> > the 1.0 release directly, we will always have that option. I suggest
> > waiting to make that call until 0.98 releases are under test and fielded.
> >
> > >>>
> > On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 1:26 PM, Andrew Purtell <apurtell@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 12:57 PM, Stack <stack@duboce.net> wrote:
> > >
> > > > I see no reason that 0.98 cannot come out a week or a month after
> 0.96;
> > >
> > >  tags is close and justification enough for a major release.
> > > > I propose Andrew as RM for 0.98/1.0.0 if he is up for taking it on.
> > >
> > > I would be pleased to volunteer to RM 0.98.
> >
> > Sounds good to me.  Would suggest announcing your taking it up in a new
> > thread rather than down here in the middle of this one -- perhaps
> > soliciting if any objection? -- and maybe as part of a message announcing
> > our starting up the 0.98 cycle.  Good on you Andrew.
> >
> > > If I were to be your RM for 0.98, then I would suggest a .0 release in
> > the
> > > beginning of October. There are 42 open issues against 0.98
> specifically
> > > and I would like to also provide everyone some time for post 0.96
> release
> > > thinking.
> >
> > Be aware that issues have been moved here just to get them out of 0.96.
> > Feel
> > free to punt them on again if not being worked on or not appropriate.
> >
> > We might want to put out a call for what folks think should be in a
> > release that
> > is slated for October -- or what they are working on and think they can
> > finish inside the October constraint.
> >
> > > I am not sure we should move from 0.98 to 1.0 without another interim
> > > release, that would be a call for a later time perhaps, maybe a 1.0
> > release
> > > at the start of January 2014.
> >
> > Ok.  Something to discuss.
> > <<<
> >
> >
> > --
> > Best regards,
> >
> >    - Andy
> >
> > Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet Hein
> > (via Tom White)
> >
>
>
>
> --
> // Jonathan Hsieh (shay)
> // Software Engineer, Cloudera
> // jon@cloudera.com
>



-- 
Best regards,

   - Andy

Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet Hein
(via Tom White)

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