hbase-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Mikhail Antonov <olorinb...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Branch for 1.3
Date Wed, 22 Jun 2016 19:28:47 GMT
Hi guys,

as we're stabilizing branch-1.3 builds and I also need to keep release
notes / tag for 1.3 accurate, could you please ping me on jira if you
commit something to this branch (I read commit log, but it's easy to miss
something in there)?

Thanks!
Mikhail

On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 3:24 PM, Mikhail Antonov <olorinbant@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Yeah,  branch-1.3 was cut some time ago and for a while most of commits
> going to branch-1 would also go to it, but last few days
> I'm trying to let only the following things go in:
>
>  - criticals and blockers
>  - test fixes and other patches stabilizing the branch
>  - cherry-picks that were missed earlier.
>  - oneliners / doc changes etc
>
> Appreciate understanding and help :)
>
> -Mikhail
>
> On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 3:07 PM, Enis Söztutar <enis@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> nvm, it is there already.
>>
>> On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 3:06 PM, Enis Söztutar <enis@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>> > Mikhail, I suggest that we create the branch-1.3 now so that you can
>> > control what goes in and what not. branch-1 is free for all usually.
>> >
>> > Enis
>> >
>> > On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 9:24 PM, Mikhail Antonov <olorinbant@gmail.com>
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> >> Suddenly we had kind of a spike in jiras filed with fixVersion=1.3 last
>> >> few
>> >> days, and I really want to get it out one of this days, so I want to
>> just
>> >> stabilize it now.
>> >>
>> >> I kicked some jiras labeled as "major" out of 1.3, and if there's
>> >> something
>> >> affecting branch-1.3 but not "Blocker" or "Critical" let's target it
>> for
>> >> 1.3.1 and / or 1.4.
>> >>
>> >> Thanks!
>> >> Mikhail
>> >>
>> >> On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 11:52 AM, Mikhail Antonov <
>> olorinbant@gmail.com>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > I'm not aware of any, and changes made to 1.3 shouldn't render 2.4
>> >> > unsupportable.
>> >> >
>> >> > On the second thought, if we want to have to maintain less minor
>> >> releases
>> >> > in 1.* line and encourage folks to update,
>> >> > we need to keep maintaining those Hadoop versions, yeah.
>> >> >
>> >> > Let's leave 2.4 as supported.
>> >> >
>> >> > -Mikhail
>> >> >
>> >> > On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 7:11 AM, Sean Busbey <busbey@cloudera.com>
>> >> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> On Fri, Jun 10, 2016 at 7:00 PM, Mikhail Antonov <
>> olorinbant@gmail.com
>> >> >
>> >> >> wrote:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > I'm thinking to move Hadoop 2.4.* from Supported to Not Tested,
to
>> >> kind
>> >> >> of
>> >> >> > encourage people to move and have less versions to test. How
many
>> >> people
>> >> >> > want to stick with Hadoop 2.4 yet upgrade to HBase 1.3?
>> >> >> >
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Hadoop 2.4 is still considered a "safe bet" stable release for
those
>> >> >> in LTM mode.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Our compatibility guidelines say that we won't force an incompatible
>> >> >> dependency
>> >> >> upgrade in a minor version. Do we know if Hadoop 2.4 -> 2.5
includes
>> >> any
>> >> >> documented incompatibilities?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> --
>> >> >> busbey
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > --
>> >> > Thanks,
>> >> > Michael Antonov
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> Thanks,
>> >> Michael Antonov
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Thanks,
> Michael Antonov
>



-- 
Thanks,
Michael Antonov

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