hbase-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Elliott Clark <ecl...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Branch for 1.3
Date Fri, 26 Feb 2016 17:50:57 GMT
I disagree. We have agreed that 2.0 will have a new assignement manager.
There's a lot of work that has been done on getting that in, so far there
are no benefits to the end user from all that work. We should stick with
the plan and release 2.0 when it's ready.

On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 9:39 AM, Stephen Jiang <syuanjiangdev@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Thanks for Mikhail for taking the 1.3 RM role.  Looks like we have a lot of
> new things in 1.3 release.
>
> Based on the experience of 1.1 and 1.2 release, it takes a lot of efforts
> to get a stable minor release out.  From this, I have my own 2-cents on 1.4
> release.  The plan is to have 2.0 release during summer time of this year
> (yeah, *this year).  * Given the limited time and resource,  after 1.3
> release, instead of spending effort on 1.4 release, the community should
> focus on stabilizing master (or branch-2, not exist as of now) branch and
> make 2.0 release a priority.  2.0 release would bring more values to
> customer  & move towards maturity of HBASE product.
>
> Thanks
> Stephen
>
> On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 1:49 AM, Mikhail Antonov <olorinbant@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Created an umbrella jira for 1.3 release - HBASE-15341
> >
> > So it looks like we may have 1.4 release before 2.0 is out? I tried to
> add
> > 1.4 version in jira so we can keep it in branch-1 poms but I couldn't -
> > looks like I don't have permissions?
> >
> > -Mikhail
> >
> > On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 3:52 PM, Andrew Purtell <apurtell@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > The guy we had looking at streaming replication moved on and there's no
> > > immediate plans to take on the work, FWIW
> > >
> > > On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 3:33 PM, Matteo Bertozzi <
> > theo.bertozzi@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > I was shooting for summer for hbase 2.0, the main problem is that
> there
> > > is
> > > > still no code for the new AM or for fs changes, which are the two
> that
> > > may
> > > > impact compatibility (working slowly on that). Streaming replication
> > and
> > > > others seems compatible enough but no code there too.
> > > >
> > > > Matteo
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 3:29 PM, Mikhail Antonov <
> olorinbant@gmail.com
> > >
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Agreed. I just meant - readiness of 2.0 is something affecting
> > > decisions
> > > > on
> > > > > whether or not to backport mobs to branch-1 (which is itself
> separate
> > > > > thread).
> > > > >
> > > > > -Mikhail
> > > > >
> > > > > On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 3:27 PM, Sean Busbey <busbey@cloudera.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 5:21 PM, Mikhail Antonov <
> > > olorinbant@gmail.com
> > > > >
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >  - "Shouldn't we rather try to get 2.0 release out and
have
> mobs
> > > > > there".
> > > > > > -
> > > > > > > So how far do we feel 2.0 release is?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 2.0 readiness probably deserves its own [DISCUSS] thread, but
> we're
> > > now
> > > > > > past a year since the HBase 1.0.0 release, so I hope it's soon.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > Sean
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > Michael Antonov
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Best regards,
> > >
> > >    - Andy
> > >
> > > Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet
> Hein
> > > (via Tom White)
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Thanks,
> > Michael Antonov
> >
>

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