Mailing-List: contact dev-help@hbase.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@hbase.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: message received from 54.191.145.13
 which is an MX secondary for dev@hbase.apache.org)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAGHyZ6+No59OGX2PGMay8Hw27ufXDgHKm+SgKTt+=UUQmr_f4g@mail.gmail.com>
References: 
 <CA+RK=_CkTUfa3nWPsy2A0PZt07h=1stP72rcazBrw5U0JFdgXA@mail.gmail.com>
 <5537D45D.3020207@gmail.com>
 <CAGHyZ6L3kMQgACjujFyGBOiKbHNXW=-hc=7+G-cE-+y5BDSakg@mail.gmail.com>
 <5537DBF5.6080204@gmail.com>
 <CA+RK=_AnCe-XwGjguw1=SyZObBe2EVLO=969C_Qy1ChEdiZfWQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAMUu0w_4YM-oM0u4KQ0AOdrxGf=qkGxdk5Z2PZ9=WS5Nw0xLvQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAGHyZ6LtU+CJP9fAtq+wSq-kFsXyPvFG2qPLPoHiOP+QhWSUWQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CADcMMgGmfwSxDPMs3rR-JMzvn4bSyXZCyc+OHG_eb4s9aqFsOg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAGHyZ6KukpNxXOgSXzOEvdhagdXQAfZ00knLor2jAyqAbR_A1Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAMUu0w9auTGgqACo_Eizv+q7jP8AMjK+omDdBLnECuFtAyzs-g@mail.gmail.com>
 <CA+RK=_BUt-xcytK_7mrHnaxO8KMRcH_0D=-dspttTh+4zEjJsQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CADcMMgGWNZDppmF59EPpXZkANPzTKba3ypvWYdBeYMqhTP8c3A@mail.gmail.com>
 <CANZa=Gsxaw5gsE7KL_FN2oigOVCwj0CUwJPYu6ib0N6k8kkOUQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAGHyZ6+7hogCLnhSOkwrTdw9G6UyL43GZGKpbnytEEnnS3PcMA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CALvzVW1QkUtB-qRDBuAWhN9-nyD392WMvnCnhNn3PoLc5Cd72w@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAGHyZ6+No59OGX2PGMay8Hw27ufXDgHKm+SgKTt+=UUQmr_f4g@mail.gmail.com>
From: Nick Dimiduk <ndimiduk@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 26 Apr 2015 11:33:53 -0700
Message-ID: 
 <CANZa=GuYMxNSCFXE43rUHmyMJ3rE4kaiKqyjLvVYuATN23suVg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Clarifying interface evolution freedom in patch releases (was:
 Re: [VOTE] Third release candidate for HBase 1.0.1 (RC2))
To: hbase-dev <dev@hbase.apache.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=f46d043c7b48501fa10514a4e015

--f46d043c7b48501fa10514a4e015
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

I spoke with a couple of our HDFS folks on Friday, they sound confident
that 2.7.1 will be considered production-stable. I think we can try bumping
master to 2.7.1 when it's out.

On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 10:03 AM, Sean Busbey <busbey@cloudera.com> wrote:

> On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 11:53 AM, Elliott Clark <eclark@apache.org> 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
>

--f46d043c7b48501fa10514a4e015--