hbase-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From lars hofhansl <la...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Planning for HBase 1.2
Date Sat, 23 May 2015 21:57:15 GMT
It's a large new feature. We might not technically break anything, but we're introducing a
lot of extra risk.As a case in point... At Salesforce we think the timing would work out to
make 1.2 our next standard version. If MOBs were merged we'd likely stick with 1.1 instead.

I guess it all depends how long we're planning to maintain branches. If 1.2 indicates the
soon death of 1.1 we need to be more careful in 1.2. If we're planning to keep 1.1 (and 1.0)
around as long as 0.98, we can be more aggressive.
It's a fluffy discussion :)

-- Lars
      From: Sean Busbey <busbey@cloudera.com>
 To: dev <dev@hbase.apache.org>; lars hofhansl <larsh@apache.org> 
 Sent: Friday, May 22, 2015 9:45 PM
 Subject: Re: Planning for HBase 1.2
   
So long as we can do it without breaking compatibility, what feels wrong about it? If our
goal is to get to semver, we have to progress to descriptive numbers at some point.


On Fri, May 22, 2015 at 11:39 PM, lars hofhansl <larsh@apache.org> wrote:

Agreed. I'd add that shipping a major feature like MOB with a minor branch "feels" wrong.
      From: Andrew Purtell <apurtell@apache.org>
 To: "dev@hbase.apache.org" <dev@hbase.apache.org>
 Sent: Friday, May 22, 2015 12:40 PM
 Subject: Re: Planning for HBase 1.2

Another point of clarification, sorry, I hit the send button too early it
seems: I don't believe MOB is fully integrated yet, for example the feature
is an extension to store that lacks support for encryption (this would
technically be a feature regression); and HBCK. I have not been following
MOB too closely so could be mistaken. These issues do not preclude a merge
of MOB into trunk, but do preclude a merge back of MOB from trunk to
branch-1. I would veto the latter until such shortcomings in the
implementation that could be described as regressions are addressed. I
would also like to see a performance analysis of a range of workloads
before and after in as much detail as can be mustered, and would be happy
to volunteer to help out with that.


On Fri, May 22, 2015 at 12:32 PM, Andrew Purtell <apurtell@apache.org>
wrote:

> I was also thinking about RMing for 1.2 as we try and bring something post
> 1.0 into production at my employer.
>
> Related, of the list of features proposed I would strongly prefer MOB not
> be included.
>
>
>
> On Fri, May 22, 2015 at 12:19 PM, Sean Busbey <busbey@cloudera.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi folks!
>>
>> I'd like to volunteer to RM HBase 1.2 and aim for RCs starting in July.
>>
>> Here's an initial list of things I want to get out:
>>
>> * MOB
>>
>> * native crc
>>
>> * incremental improvements for procedure v2
>>
>> * adding Java 8 as supported
>>
>>
>> Anything else folks want to see called out?
>>
>> --
>> 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)


  



-- 
Sean

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