hbase-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Stack <st...@duboce.net>
Subject Re: DISCUSSION: 1.0.0
Date Mon, 10 Feb 2014 18:52:18 GMT
On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 9:31 AM, Jean-Marc Spaggiari <
jean-marc@spaggiari.org> wrote:

> What's about reducing the default log level?
>
>
Is the above different from '...Ship with default logging level set to
INFO'?
Thanks JMS,
St.Ack



>
> 2014-02-10 12:24 GMT-05:00 Stack <stack@duboce.net>:
>
> > Suggestions for 1.0.0 if if it is to come out in next month or so:
> >
> > + Update included libs (e.g. move to log4j2)
> >
> > + Enable distributed log replay as default (fix bugs)
> > + Enable hfilev3 as default.
> > + Ship with default logging level set to INFO and content of the logs
> still
> > makes sense
> >
> > What else?
> >
> > + Enable dynamic config and schema by default.
> >
> >
> > St.Ack
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 4:09 PM, Stack <stack@duboce.net> wrote:
> >
> > > On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 1:52 PM, lars hofhansl <larsh@apache.org>
> wrote:
> > >
> > >> I'm happy to volunteer. Happy if Enis does it, too.
> > >>
> > >>
> > > I'd be happy to do it too but my thinking is that it is good to spread
> > the
> > > role around.
> > > St.Ack
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >>   ------------------------------
> > >>  *From:* Stack <stack@duboce.net>
> > >> *To:* HBase Dev List <dev@hbase.apache.org>
> > >> *Cc:* lars hofhansl <larsh@apache.org>
> > >> *Sent:* Monday, January 20, 2014 1:43 PM
> > >> *Subject:* Re: DISCUSSION: 1.0.0
> > >>
> > >> On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 1:20 PM, Enis Söztutar <enis@apache.org>
> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> I think whether we will need a new RM will depend on the decision to
> > >> release 1.0 from 0.98 branches or 0.99 branches(current trunk).
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> I think it should have an RM regardless.  We should probably try to
> put
> > a
> > >> higher polish on a 1.0 than we would mayhaps on a lesser release.  RM
> > will
> > >> have enough work on their plate just keeping up state (IMO).
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> We can do the previous practice of releasing 0.99.0, then turning
> 0.99.x
> > >> as
> > >> the 1.0.0. In that case, I can also volunteer as well.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Good by me.  Anyone else interested in the job?   Speak up if so.
> > >>
> > >> If not, you'd get it by default Enis.  Else you and whoever will have
> to
> > >> dook it out.
> > >>
> > >> St.Ack
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> >
>

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