hbase-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Stephen Jiang <syuanjiang...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Branch for 1.3
Date Fri, 26 Feb 2016 17:39:38 GMT
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