Return-Path: X-Original-To: apmail-hbase-dev-archive@www.apache.org Delivered-To: apmail-hbase-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by minotaur.apache.org (Postfix) with SMTP id EFA7711D51 for ; Mon, 2 Jun 2014 18:44:17 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 60233 invoked by uid 500); 2 Jun 2014 18:44:17 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-hbase-dev-archive@hbase.apache.org Received: (qmail 60151 invoked by uid 500); 2 Jun 2014 18:44:17 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@hbase.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: dev@hbase.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list dev@hbase.apache.org Received: (qmail 60140 invoked by uid 99); 2 Jun 2014 18:44:17 -0000 Received: from nike.apache.org (HELO nike.apache.org) (192.87.106.230) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Mon, 02 Jun 2014 18:44:17 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=1.5 required=5.0 tests=HTML_MESSAGE,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of enis.soz@gmail.com designates 209.85.160.182 as permitted sender) Received: from [209.85.160.182] (HELO mail-yk0-f182.google.com) (209.85.160.182) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Mon, 02 Jun 2014 18:44:13 +0000 Received: by mail-yk0-f182.google.com with SMTP id 9so4011094ykp.13 for ; Mon, 02 Jun 2014 11:43:50 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :content-type; bh=q2yfjPH13y6PbTqbzlpNXvBDYYZKmre/uk/IOtbIxkg=; b=f2qK2fr3ewrYozbI7C8rxeTYp244y1suP+RKG89j6I/AA0d58/A+syags4B9nX4WGX 3POCamghsvANKMvQF3WQR1dhRLGb02Tqo6brc+QPDrCJ0jGxRapiDJHkFa32KBnFJABJ 3isPeLiklMLi0WchusF8j0ngacJdiyDWMA8gAPfm2NzQ750BHBcMt60AbfwWQ54gwZuz vuGCV5IVdwLZV6HC0J/+Shh6mtf5jarD1hHjfcwHZ7sKK5w1lauhTGScMLZocCLbjWlh F/5qPYDnb39CLMNanftreKgPpSaM1Tr7TrTcTdJlpr8yPGf++sqny0Bn27ujYFE8dc7U SZ7A== X-Received: by 10.236.194.169 with SMTP id m29mr6711090yhn.121.1401734629844; Mon, 02 Jun 2014 11:43:49 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.170.208.206 with HTTP; Mon, 2 Jun 2014 11:43:29 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: From: =?UTF-8?Q?Enis_S=C3=B6ztutar?= Date: Mon, 2 Jun 2014 11:43:29 -0700 Message-ID: Subject: Re: DISCUSSION: 1.0.0 To: "dev@hbase.apache.org" Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=bcaec50dc668b0a1ad04fadec602 X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org --bcaec50dc668b0a1ad04fadec602 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 On Mon, Jun 2, 2014 at 10:25 AM, Andrew Purtell 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 > 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 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 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) > --bcaec50dc668b0a1ad04fadec602--