hbase-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Andrew Purtell <apurt...@apache.org>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] EOL 1.1 Release Branch
Date Fri, 04 Nov 2016 16:57:28 GMT
Let me add I'd switch my thinking to +1 for retiring 1.1 if, now that we
have a 1.3.0RC0 shaping up, it turns out the 1.3 code line can survive the
same 1B ITBLL testing that 1.1 does (and 1.2 does not).

On Fri, Nov 4, 2016 at 9:52 AM, Andrew Purtell <apurtell@apache.org> wrote:

> I'm -1 on this idea, for now.
>
> We have been evaluating 1.1 and 1.2 for upgrade and whereas 1.1 will
> survive all testing including large scale ITBLL tests, 1.2 will not - no
> 1.2, from 1.2.0 on up. I've found one issue (fixed), and am now trying to
> nail down another.
>
> I would like to see two things:
>
> 1. Others in the community step up to evaluate the stability of 1.1.7
> versus 1.2.3 (or .4) using ITBLL with at least 1B rows of data, and report
> in. Is it just me?
>
> 2. We do not declare 1.1 EOL until 1.2 is unquestionable stable according
> to the most practical rigor we can throw at it with our tooling. Especially
> because I still plan to resign as 0.98 RM soon, which I think will trigger
> an EOL of that code line.
>
> I will be resigning as 0.98 RM effective January 1 2017 and at that time
> the community can discuss what to do with 0.98. From my point of view, I'm
> done with spending time on it. Happy to take some of the time freed up and
> use it to carry 1.1 forward if we are still making releases off this code
> line then.
>
>
> On Fri, Nov 4, 2016 at 9:24 AM, Nick Dimiduk <ndimiduk@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> Hello HBase Community!
>>
>> We have a small matter to discuss.
>>
>> HBase 1.2 has been formally marked as "stable" for the last couple months.
>> HBase 1.3.0rc0 is just around the corner. I think it's time to start a
>> conversation about retiring the 1.1 line. The volunteer bandwidth for
>> maintaining multiple branches is precious and as we spread ourselves more
>> thin, odds of decay increase.
>>
>> I propose discontinuing 1.1 with a single release following 1.3.1. That'll
>> give us one last chance to back port any bug fixes discovered in the
>> diligence we're putting into the new minor release. Given the current pace
>> of 1.3, I estimate this will happen in January or February of 2017. It's
>> not a lot of time for existing deployments to get around to upgrading, but
>> the upgrade path is trivial and 1.2 has been available for quite some
>> time. This will probably make our last release from this branch at 1.1.10
>> or there abouts.
>>
>> Are there any objections or concerns with the above plan? Are there any
>> downstream communities who need our help moving onto 1.2? Please let us
>> know.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Nick
>>
>
>
>
> --
> 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)

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