hbase-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Enis Söztutar <enis....@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Rough goal timelines for 1.1 and 2.0
Date Mon, 16 Mar 2015 18:50:57 GMT
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)
>

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