hbase-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Enis Söztutar <enis....@gmail.com>
Subject Re: DISCUSSION: 1.0.0
Date Mon, 02 Jun 2014 18:43:29 GMT
On Mon, Jun 2, 2014 at 10:25 AM, Andrew Purtell <apurtell@apache.org> wrote:

> An email from JIRA reminds me that we should also have the ZooKeeper
> related refactoring complete in 1.0 before releasing it. That work is
> pretty far along and needs all bits in place to be useful.
>

Agreed that it will be good to get this completed. However, they are mostly
internal interfaces and I am not sure whether all the changes required will
be done in time. We can continue on this even after 1.0, no?


>
>
> On Mon, Jun 2, 2014 at 10:23 AM, Andrew Purtell <apurtell@apache.org>
> wrote:
>
> > HBASE-10856 has 8 open subtasks, 6 of which are not assigned.
> >
> > Four other JIRAs (HBASE-9864, HBASE-11122, HBASE-11124, and HBASE-11225)
> > are incorporated by reference and are open. Those could be dropped. All
> but
> > HBASE-11122 represent significant work.
> >
> > My guess based on the lack of activity on the 1.0 JIRA is it will be open
> > for a long time without much attention. Perhaps we can instead move much
> > to a new JIRA serving as an umbrella for 1.1 and call 1.0 as imminent.
> > Merge HBASE-10070 into trunk - if the vote passes - and then only keep
> the
> > issues for updating documentation and testing rolling restart / compat
> with
> > 0.98?
>

I would like to get HBASE-10070 merged. Let me start the VOTE, now that the
DISCUSSION thread died down.


>  >
> >
> > On Mon, Jun 2, 2014 at 10:11 AM, Stack <stack@duboce.net> wrote:
> >
> >> 1.0.0 has been going on for a while now.  Master has a bunch of good
> stuff
> >> in it .  What are we thinking of as a release date for the first 0.99.0
> >> and
> >> for 1.0.0 itself?
>

I think we can cut 0.99 in a couple of weeks. I was aiming Aug timeframe
for an eventual 1.0 release. After that we will have a branch that we can
selectively include features only needed for the release.


> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >> St.Ack
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 11:26 AM, Stack <stack@duboce.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> > Andrew is talking of the first 0.98RC being imminent.
> >> >
> >> > Time to start in on the release that will follow 0.98.x.  We seem to
> all
> >> > be good with calling it 1.0.0.  Speak up if you think different. (I
> just
> >> > added a 1.0.0 version to JIRA).
> >> >
> >> > + What should 1.0.0 have in it beyond what is in 0.98.
> >> > + Why can't 1.0.0 just be 0.98.0, or 0.98.1 altogether?
> >> > + When should it come out?  I'm thinking soon after 0.98. Feb/March?
> >> > (Presuming 0.98 ships in Jan).
> >> > + Who should RM it? (I could but perhaps others are interested).
> >> >
> >> > What else should we consider achieving the state of 1.0.0ness?
> >> >
> >> > Happy New Year all,
> >> > St.Ack
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Best regards,
> >
> >    - Andy
> >
> > Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet Hein
> > (via Tom White)
> >
>
>
>
> --
> 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