Mailing-List: contact dev-help@hbase.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@hbase.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: local policy)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws;
  s=s1024; d=yahoo.com;
  h=X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-Rocket-MIMEInfo:X-RocketYMMF:X-Mailer:References:Message-ID:Date:From:Reply-To:Subject:To:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type;
  b=rfWksgxaGd2s+gmGVlb8Ou0XaJyJfQlFOjk8plnqMGPRnPH8M8ARmdM53vg9GRPwNcrEV6Ol6H7beOZdJaQsmdU9rdJuPoPF3C7SeBCe1Qw/oHtsn02k8/fiRjOpJkZDJ+oBI2bgNsl80W/7pfXYbPOVea2taaI0Tv4cpDusn44=;
References: 
 <CA+RK=_D5wD-7HMdb3i0rdwjT_tqv_Wof44mbBOc4kA4TyAyfEg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAha9a1A2cG5Q+VuHGJfKVPGrUU2bGoU28a7KJo7LA9th1=SOg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CA+RK=_C+j7HMBTbbTwkUvgkkNYgiRjyPAwwRcYbaPegnSf=COw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAha9a3uLt8i+GG=GQuN+RviXE97jMKorFQL5UuM0CFwQvxY7w@mail.gmail.com>
 <CA+RK=_AdO-q3iOW4LyYqXKALcyS8sHKrsPUNV8+9Dj=RmRDs_g@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <1377150045.62804.YahooMailNeo@web140604.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>
Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2013 22:40:45 -0700 (PDT)
From: lars hofhansl <larsh@apache.org>
Reply-To: lars hofhansl <larsh@apache.org>
Subject: Re: Thinking about 0.98
To: "dev@hbase.apache.org" <dev@hbase.apache.org>
In-Reply-To: 
 <CA+RK=_AdO-q3iOW4LyYqXKALcyS8sHKrsPUNV8+9Dj=RmRDs_g@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
 boundary="1023258982-1818106336-1377150045=:62804"

--1023258982-1818106336-1377150045=:62804
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Could one say that 0.98 is to 0.96 what 0.94 is to 0.92?=0AIMHO, that would=
 makes sense. Are we planning the same compatibility guarantees - i.e. no d=
owntime during an upgrade from any 0.96.x to any 0.98.x release?=0A=0A-- La=
rs=0A=0A=0A=0A________________________________=0A From: Andrew Purtell <apu=
rtell@apache.org>=0ATo: "dev@hbase.apache.org" <dev@hbase.apache.org> =0ASe=
nt: Wednesday, August 21, 2013 7:18 PM=0ASubject: Re: Thinking about 0.98=
=0A =0A=0A>=0AI'm working on some API clean up currently which oddly will a=
lso affect the=0AHFile format.=0A=0ACan you point to a jira?=0A=0A> I'd als=
o like to do some API culling and simplification -- where would this=0Ago?=
=0A=0ASince 0.98 is to come quickly after 0.96 and test our compatibility s=
tory,=0Awe should take this case by case. My feeling is if after the change=
s a 0.96=0Aclient can still talk to a 0.98 server, and a mixed 0.96 and 0.9=
8 server=0Aenvironment is still possible, then it could go into 0.98 even i=
f it breaks=0AJava binary compatibility for client applications, we're not =
at 1.0 yet.=0AAny objections?=0A=0A>=0AWould 0.98 be branched off of trunk =
or 0.96 then?=0A=0AI was thinking of branching 0.98 from trunk "soon" after=
 0.96 is released.=0A=0A=0A=0AOn Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 6:42 PM, Jonathan Hsi=
eh <jon@cloudera.com> wrote:=0A=0A> A few questions:=0A>=0A>=0A> On Thu, Au=
g 15, 2013 at 5:57 PM, Andrew Purtell <apurtell@apache.org>=0A> wrote:=0A>=
=0A> > > My suggestion is that we limit the number of major features target=
ing=0A> > this version.=0A> >=0A> > +1=0A> >=0A> > > Can we say Tags the on=
ly Major feature that must get in and then all=0A> > major features are not=
 blockers?=0A> >=0A> > Core changes, you mean? One or perhaps two significa=
nt core changes could=0A> > be doable in the available time. Is there anoth=
er besides tags/HFile V3?=0A> >=0A> >=0A> Something will likely show up --=
=0A> I'm working on some API clean up currently=0A> which oddly will also a=
ffect the HFile format.=0A>=0A>=0A>=0A> > What I would consider a blocker w=
ould be a usability problem, a=0A> performance=0A> > regression, or an API,=
 wire, or data compatibility regression.=0A> >=0A> > In my opinion, a new f=
eature should be implemented within a well defined=0A> > space for that pur=
pose: as a coprocessor, plugin, or as a feature of=0A> HFile=0A> > V3 (whic=
h I would like to make more pluggable, therefore extensible and=0A> > maint=
ainable). I propose HFile V3 be included, marked as experimental=0A> > thro=
ugh the 0.98 cycle, with a feature freeze at the .0 release.=0A> >=0A> > So=
unds reasonable.=0A>=0A>=0A> > > What do you think our planned 0.96 compat =
story is wrt 0.98?=0A> >=0A> > 0.96 and 0.98 should be able to run in a mix=
ed server side environment=0A> > while a rolling upgrade is in progress, wi=
thout limits imposed on how=0A> long=0A> > that might take. Perhaps 0.98 is=
 deployed only to one table placement=0A> group=0A> > as a trial. With the =
caveat that new features might introduce=0A> > complications, continuing th=
e example, a new HFile feature is enabled=0A> for a=0A> > table and placeme=
nt group so the table can't be placed elsewhere. Clients=0A> > should be ab=
le to run in a mixed version environment indefinitely.=0A> >=0A> > I'd also=
 like to do some API culling and simplification -- where would=0A> this go?=
=0A>=0A> Would 0.98 be branched off of trunk or 0.96 then?=0A>=0A>=0A> >=0A=
> > On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 1:25 PM, Jonathan Hsieh <jon@cloudera.com>=0A> =
wrote:=0A> >=0A> > > On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 12:21 PM, Andrew Purtell <apur=
tell@apache.org=0A> > > >wrote:=0A> > >=0A> > > > On the thread '[UPDATE] F=
inishing up 0.96 --> WAS Re: 0.95 and 0.96=0A> > > > remaining issues', Sta=
ck, our RM for 0.95/0.96 has drawn the line on=0A> a=0A> > > > feature free=
ze and set a course for an 0.96 release to happen soon.=0A> > > Toward=0A> =
> > > the end of that thread there is a bit on beyond 0.96 that I have=0A> =
> included=0A> > > > below for your reference. To summarize the discussion =
points:=0A> > > >=0A> > > > - This is a call for an 0.98 major release in e=
arly October. Let's=0A> > > discuss=0A> > > > first if that timeframe is re=
asonable, and then what can and should=0A> go=0A> > > into=0A> > > > a new =
major release in this timeframe.=0A> > > >=0A> > > > +1=0A> > >=0A> > > My =
suggestion is that we limit the number of major features targeting=0A> > th=
is=0A> > > version.=A0 Can we say Tags the only Major feature that must get=
 in and=0A> > then=0A> > > all major features are not blockers?=0A> > >=0A>=
 > > What do you think our planned 0.96 compat story is wrt 0.98?=A0 This=
=0A> would=0A> > be=0A> > > a great opportunity to try see if the protobuf =
evolution path is what=0A> we=0A> > > hope it is.=0A> > >=0A> > >=0A> > >=
=0A> > > > - I have volunteered to manage this release. Let's discuss if th=
ere=0A> are=0A> > > > concerns or objections to that.=0A> > > >=0A> > > > +=
1=0A> > >=0A> > >=0A> > > > Assuming there are no objections, in a few days=
 I will adjust target=0A> > > > versions for 0.98 in JIRA, file any new iss=
ues as needed, and then=0A> > post a=0A> > > > summary here. I suggest look=
ing at 0.98 through the lens of being the=0A> > > last=0A> > > > release be=
fore the big 1.0 event. Therefore, what should go in are=0A> > things=0A> >=
 > > that almost made the 0.96 cut, and "1.0 necessary" features that,=0A> =
> first,=0A> > > > should be in a 1.0 product, and, second, could benefit f=
rom one=0A> release=0A> > > > cycle to bake. Once there is an 0.98 major re=
lease, I also suggest a=0A> > > > regular train of minor releases like what=
 Lars has done for 0.94.=0A> > Also, I=0A> > > > don't think it necessary t=
o decide today if a 0.98 release should=0A> > become=0A> > > > the 1.0 rele=
ase directly, we will always have that option. I suggest=0A> > > > waiting =
to make that call until 0.98 releases are under test and=0A> > fielded.=0A>=
 > > >=0A> > > > >>>=0A> > > > On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 1:26 PM, Andrew Purt=
ell <apurtell@apache.org=0A> >=0A> > > > wrote:=0A> > > >=0A> > > > > On We=
d, Aug 14, 2013 at 12:57 PM, Stack <stack@duboce.net> wrote:=0A> > > > >=0A=
> > > > > > I see no reason that 0.98 cannot come out a week or a month aft=
er=0A> > > 0.96;=0A> > > > >=0A> > > > >=A0 tags is close and justification=
 enough for a major release.=0A> > > > > > I propose Andrew as RM for 0.98/=
1.0.0 if he is up for taking it=0A> on.=0A> > > > >=0A> > > > > I would be =
pleased to volunteer to RM 0.98.=0A> > > >=0A> > > > Sounds good to me.=A0 =
Would suggest announcing your taking it up in a=0A> new=0A> > > > thread ra=
ther than down here in the middle of this one -- perhaps=0A> > > > soliciti=
ng if any objection? -- and maybe as part of a message=0A> > announcing=0A>=
 > > > our starting up the 0.98 cycle.=A0 Good on you Andrew.=0A> > > >=0A>=
 > > > > If I were to be your RM for 0.98, then I would suggest a .0 releas=
e=0A> > in=0A> > > > the=0A> > > > > beginning of October. There are 42 ope=
n issues against 0.98=0A> > > specifically=0A> > > > > and I would like to =
also provide everyone some time for post 0.96=0A> > > release=0A> > > > > t=
hinking.=0A> > > >=0A> > > > Be aware that issues have been moved here just=
 to get them out of=0A> 0.96.=0A> > > > Feel=0A> > > > free to punt them on=
 again if not being worked on or not appropriate.=0A> > > >=0A> > > > We mi=
ght want to put out a call for what folks think should be in a=0A> > > > re=
lease that=0A> > > > is slated for October -- or what they are working on a=
nd think they=0A> can=0A> > > > finish inside the October constraint.=0A> >=
 > >=0A> > > > > I am not sure we should move from 0.98 to 1.0 without anot=
her=0A> interim=0A> > > > > release, that would be a call for a later time =
perhaps, maybe a 1.0=0A> > > > release=0A> > > > > at the start of January =
2014.=0A> > > >=0A> > > > Ok.=A0 Something to discuss.=0A> > > > <<<=0A> > =
> >=0A> > > >=0A> > > > --=0A> > > > Best regards,=0A> > > >=0A> > > >=A0 =
=A0 - Andy=0A> > > >=0A> > > > Problems worthy of attack prove their worth =
by hitting back. - Piet=0A> > Hein=0A> > > > (via Tom White)=0A> > > >=0A> =
> >=0A> > >=0A> > >=0A> > > --=0A> > > // Jonathan Hsieh (shay)=0A> > > // =
Software Engineer, Cloudera=0A> > > // jon@cloudera.com=0A> > >=0A> >=0A> >=
=0A> >=0A> > --=0A> > Best regards,=0A> >=0A> >=A0 =A0 - Andy=0A> >=0A> > P=
roblems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet Hein=0A>=
 > (via Tom White)=0A> >=0A>=0A>=0A>=0A> --=0A> // Jonathan Hsieh (shay)=0A=
> // Software Engineer, Cloudera=0A> // jon@cloudera.com=0A>=0A=0A=0A=0A-- =
=0ABest regards,=0A=0A=A0  - Andy=0A=0AProblems worthy of attack prove thei=
r worth by hitting back. - Piet Hein=0A(via Tom White)
--1023258982-1818106336-1377150045=:62804--