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 97B17175AB for ; Fri, 24 Apr 2015 17:04:28 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 87678 invoked by uid 500); 24 Apr 2015 17:04:28 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-hbase-dev-archive@hbase.apache.org Received: (qmail 87588 invoked by uid 500); 24 Apr 2015 17:04:28 -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 87574 invoked by uid 99); 24 Apr 2015 17:04:27 -0000 Received: from nike.apache.org (HELO nike.apache.org) (192.87.106.230) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Fri, 24 Apr 2015 17:04:27 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=2.2 required=5.0 tests=HTML_MESSAGE,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: message received from 54.76.25.247 which is an MX secondary for dev@hbase.apache.org) Received: from [54.76.25.247] (HELO mx1-eu-west.apache.org) (54.76.25.247) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Fri, 24 Apr 2015 17:04:02 +0000 Received: from mail-qk0-f177.google.com (mail-qk0-f177.google.com [209.85.220.177]) by mx1-eu-west.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at mx1-eu-west.apache.org) with ESMTPS id 8270D2532C for ; Fri, 24 Apr 2015 17:04:00 +0000 (UTC) Received: by qkgx75 with SMTP id x75so33799299qkg.1 for ; Fri, 24 Apr 2015 10:03:59 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:content-type; bh=kmnNUOrOhHSMG9XndUFI0IPoF2clbgoqtyo+l8zDxdQ=; b=Ndf3XCRzmkpmp6qKDXVN+gN0+SIGb80NSiK3q40HPE5P3DYqoH6m1ajIrUqGaNy1po bJe/ZXtQct2OY/txWhDnlAZN2wBcukHwCt3NQoYLThw9/iaYL6xQA9UzIioyAiNUB/yz 1vVH0DllsbOXvECQ561taU9bU5XKmEHTcTyRtxmcYQpp4A8X/jwUDQOW1Lw76G/uew4N uQ6oQO4LdhWUX4gQYDxMFqQ1EF4M9eCP3outeRymLbKN1TUzdkUpSD1lPOpU4xax6fWC 3+18ZdawBH8zDHsaoVO3Ptq6yryYU652sKTJlY+moOqbB3KE4YwvHO/h6Ag2/j8ZV747 tysg== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnA1jtXCvMYgtdbjU7udU0PevRYUzS/hDe91sX+vV7jPu+vRI35vFqsHxJeB53nmFKD9ICJ X-Received: by 10.140.83.116 with SMTP id i107mr10127017qgd.97.1429895039687; Fri, 24 Apr 2015 10:03:59 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.229.84.138 with HTTP; Fri, 24 Apr 2015 10:03:39 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <5537D45D.3020207@gmail.com> <5537DBF5.6080204@gmail.com> From: Sean Busbey Date: Fri, 24 Apr 2015 12:03:39 -0500 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Clarifying interface evolution freedom in patch releases (was: Re: [VOTE] Third release candidate for HBase 1.0.1 (RC2)) To: dev Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c13a10e8384005147b61a3 X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org --001a11c13a10e8384005147b61a3 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 11:53 AM, Elliott Clark wrote: > Is 2.7.1 going to have that not for production tag or was that tag just > because of the issues found late in the cycle that are now fixed? > > >From reading from hadoop lists, I'm not sure. Including the non-production tag seemed to be a compromise position to get 2.7.0 out the door. The cycle covered so much ground that I'm not sure when it got decided. The discussion also got them onto figuring out what their general policy on production / non-production will be. When they come to a decision it'll be good to revisit and see what it means for us. At least some of the Hadoopers are in agreement that 2.7.1 should be labeled production ready. No one was opposed to the matter, but there were some noticeable gaps in assenting voices[1]. It's supposed to be soon, so we'll see I guess? [1]: http://markmail.org/thread/zwzze6cqqgwq4rmw#query:+page:1+mid:u6pihxyy36pzz52e+state:results -- Sean --001a11c13a10e8384005147b61a3--