Mailing-List: contact dev-help@hbase.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@hbase.apache.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAFb6HiLnzHMSiAEcgs9FCMYoMsR99aTCFRxkSA3JubUrc9GWKw@mail.gmail.com>
References: 
 <CALvzVW3J=aFvC9zzezHxwXb-OaB3Y4CwxD=uz3qvURbTfMqBMw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CADcMMgFjiU2dPKN8aBT0cv+2G0KhhUVtHSfdYVN-6WNANMAP+w@mail.gmail.com>
 <439D4C7F-431F-48BD-BA1C-2EB9C18C1A7E@gmail.com>
 <CAMUu0w_LP0tDaD_AOuSfZ6uv9XwyrXf=nHkpFmqE6RV3oEe=LA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAHxLZBXbH_Rrc7X-Optet=7gSQfF-5uUykiJQNP0CX2VPNVgjw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAMUu0w_Ag_4AWwBu=W+vfBOxJyuD53HdZ60q1DRsXzpHK-qJGw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CALte62ztCPsiMGxepkhJCgw6OhgiPyhEpe2BU0Joj=Di8fj4xQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAGHyZ6K4VG8e4BMXFqR1ptbBC1CN-JUbrrSbHAO_d3cZGDUffg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CALte62yJ2H_a0xLPTGo3+HUTBjYTxN86FT896qtxacZ1GVNWTA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAHxLZBXjjDAZ8LzFayb8+-STYjyaAfHrbdq36AjidXsqJzJLbA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAGHyZ6+F7dT0sH-qX90x3jTDcnBe5AkQQe=fPGeRxDEeWMjYog@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAHxLZBVxfqZhYZovjV6qxcQBjWTLSRCzmrxQb6aL7pKjgnWgdQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAFb6HiLnzHMSiAEcgs9FCMYoMsR99aTCFRxkSA3JubUrc9GWKw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Andrew Purtell <apurtell@apache.org>
Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2016 15:52:18 -0800
Message-ID: 
 <CA+RK=_C02sH2M1CVcAonBW7qCypkHdympfntqM69mx0fYOe8Qw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Branch for 1.3
To: "dev@hbase.apache.org" <dev@hbase.apache.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a113db368c8fcde052ca0e1e0

--001a113db368c8fcde052ca0e1e0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

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)

--001a113db368c8fcde052ca0e1e0--