hbase-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Elliott Clark <ecl...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Rough goal timelines for 1.1 and 2.0
Date Tue, 17 Mar 2015 00:35:20 GMT
I'd be a little nervous about procedureV2 since it's a larger change, and
it would be landing later in the cycle. What do others think of a 1.1
without that ?

On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 12:35 PM, Andrew Purtell <apurtell@apache.org>
wrote:

> Agreed! Since Nick has volunteered to RM 1.1 please let me withdraw my
> earlier volunteerism for that task, unless Nick declines.
>
> On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 12:15 PM, Stack <stack@duboce.net> wrote:
>
> > Thanks for raising this topic Mr Busbey.
> >
> > A 1.1 before hbasecon would be sweet. As has been said already, 1.1 has a
> > bunch of good stuff in it already -- e.g. flush by column family -- so
> > worthwhile pushing it out soon.
> >
> > +1 on Nick for RM because it is good to spread the RM'ing load.
> >
> > St.Ack
> >
> > On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 11:50 AM, Enis Söztutar <enis.soz@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > I would love to see 1.1 in or before May. We already have good stuff in
> > > branch-1, enough to justify a minor release. Some of the "features" are
> > > still in the pipeline waiting to be finished (MOB, procV2, etc).
> > > Personally, I think we should get HBASE-12972, and ProcV2, RPC quotas
> > (and
> > > other multi-tenancy improvements not yet backported) and call it 1.1.
> > >
> > > I would +1 either Nick or Andrew, both should be excellent RMs.
> > >
> > > Enis
> > >
> > > On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 11:05 AM, Andrew Purtell <apurtell@apache.org>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > ​FWIW, the Region proposal (HBASE-12972) is ready for review. The
> > > companion
> > > > issue for SplitTransaction and RegionMergeTransaction (HBASE-12975)
> > needs
> > > > more discussion but could be ready to go in a <= one month timeframe.
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 10:30 AM, Nick Dimiduk <ndimiduk@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > I think we can learn a lesson or two from the vendor marketing
> > machines
> > > > --
> > > > > a release timed with HBaseCon would be ideal in this regard. My
> > > > obligations
> > > > > to the event are minimal, so I'm willing to volunteer as RM for
> 1.1.
> > Do
> > > > we
> > > > > think we can make some of these decisions in time for spinning RC's
> > in
> > > > > mid-April? That's just about a month away.
> > > > >
> > > > > -n
> > > > >
> > > > > On Sat, Mar 14, 2015 at 10:37 AM, Elliott Clark <eclark@apache.org
> >
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > I'm most looking forward to rpc quotas and the buffer
> improvements
> > > that
> > > > > > stack has put in. So for me getting a 1.1 in May 1 would be
cool.
> > > > > > That would allow us to talk about what was just released at
> > HBaseCon,
> > > > and
> > > > > > maybe even have 1.1.0 in production at places.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 11:44 AM, Sean Busbey <
> busbey@cloudera.com
> > >
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > The only reason I can think of to make decisions now would
be
> if
> > we
> > > > > want
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > ensure we have consensus for the changes for Phoenix and
enough
> > > time
> > > > to
> > > > > > > implement them.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Given that AFAIK it's those changes that'll drive having
a 1.1
> > > > release,
> > > > > > > seems prudent. But I haven't been tracking the changes
lately.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I think we're all in agreement that something needs to
be done,
> > and
> > > > > that
> > > > > > > HBase 1.1 and Phoenix 5 are the places to do it. Probably
it
> > won't
> > > be
> > > > > > > contentious to just decide as changes are ready?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > Sean
> > > > > > > On Mar 13, 2015 1:28 PM, "Andrew Purtell" <apurtell@apache.org
> >
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > That was my question.. We can discuss them independently?
Or
> is
> > > > > there a
> > > > > > > > reason not to?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 11:10 AM, Sean Busbey <
> > > busbey@cloudera.com
> > > > >
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 12:31 PM, Andrew Purtell
<
> > > > > > apurtell@apache.org>
> > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Do we need to couple decisions for 1.1 and
2.0 in the
> same
> > > > > > > discussion?
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Like what? Interface changes for Phoenix maybe?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > Sean
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > 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)
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> 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