hbase-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Andrew Purtell <andrew.purt...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Moving 2.0 forward
Date Sat, 31 Dec 2016 21:20:11 GMT
On the other hand branching will force the issue. There will always be lists of issues to get
in. How long have we been talking about 2.0? At least a year and a half. At some point it's
time to stop talking and take action. Let me revisit progress at the end of January and bring
this up again. As a member of the PMC I'm advising all concerned that 2.0 is talking too long
and I am considering steps to move it forward. 

> On Dec 31, 2016, at 12:54 PM, Ted Yu <yuzhihong@gmail.com> wrote:
> I agree with Stephen on not branching too early.
> When people come back from vacation, we can poll relevant parties on
> estimate of respective project to get a sense of when would be proper time
> for branching.
> On Sat, Dec 31, 2016 at 12:16 PM, Stephen Jiang <syuanjiangdev@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>> Hello, Andrew, I was a helper on Matteo so that we can help each other
>> while we are focusing on the new Assignment Manager work.  Now he is not
>> available (at least in the next few months).  I have to be more focused on
>> the new AM work; plus other work in my company; it would be too much for me
>> to 2.0 RM alone.  I am happy someone would help to take primary 2.0 RM role
>> while I am still help to make this 2.0 release smooth.
>> For branch-2, I think it is too early to cut it, as we still have a lot of
>> moving parts and on-going project that needs to be part of 2.0.  For
>> example, the mentioned new AM (and other projects, such as HBASE-14414,
>> HBASE-15179, HBASE-14070, HBASE-14850, HBASE-16833, HBASE-15531, just name
>> a few).  Cutting branch now would add burden to complete those projects.
>> thanks
>> Stephen
>> On Sat, Dec 31, 2016 at 10:54 AM, Andrew Purtell <andrew.purtell@gmail.com
>> wrote:
>>> Hi all,
>>> I've heard a rumor the co-RM situation with 2.0 may have changed. Can we
>>> get an update from co-RMs Matteo and Steven on their availability and
>>> interest in continuing in this role?
>>> To assist in moving 2.0 forward I intend to branch branch-2 from master
>>> next week. Unless there is an objection I will take this action under
>>> assumption of lazy consensus. Master branch will be renumbered to
>>> 3.0.0-SNAPSHOT. Once we have a branch-2 I will immediately begin scale
>>> tests and stabilization (via bug fixes or reverts of unfinished work) and
>>> invite interested collaborators to do the same.

View raw message