hbase-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jean-Marc Spaggiari <jean-m...@spaggiari.org>
Subject Re: DISCUSSION: 1.0.0
Date Mon, 10 Feb 2014 18:56:09 GMT
wow. Wondering how I totally skipped this line :( Sorry.

So please disregard my initial email.

Thanks,

JM


2014-02-10 13:52 GMT-05:00 Stack <stack@duboce.net>:

> 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