hbase-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ted Yu <yuzhih...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Moving 2.0 forward
Date Sat, 14 Jan 2017 23:44:56 GMT
After HBASE-16179 gets in, we can get wider feedback from interested users in using hbase-spark
module. 

We would then be able to find missing pieces. 

> On Jan 14, 2017, at 12:30 PM, Eric Charles <eric@apache.org> wrote:
> 
> I read "3.3 hbase-spark STATUS: Needs work. No one on it at mo. Doc. is just wrong. What
is there is dodgy. Could get punted."
> 
> Unit tests are working and base functionality is there. Besides the doc and compilation
against spark-2 (and scala-2.11), what else do you want to see?
> 
> 
>> On 14/01/17 10:29, Ted Yu wrote:
>> For 3.3, hbase-spark module, there is HBASE-16179 which enables support for Spark
2.0
>> It needs some review.
>> 
>> Cheers
>> 
>>> On Jan 13, 2017, at 11:25 PM, Stack <stack@duboce.net> wrote:
>>> 
>>> 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.
>>> (I could help out Stephen. We could co-RM?)
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> 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.
>>> Agree with Stephen. A bunch of stuff is half-baked so a '2.0.0' now would
>>> be all loose ends and it'd make for a messy narrative.
>>> 
>>> I started a doc listing state of 2.0.0:
>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1WCsVlnHjJeKUcl7wHwqb4z9iEu_ktczrlKHK8N4SZzs/edit?usp=sharing
>>> 
>>> In the doc I made an estimate of what the community considers core 2.0.0
>>> items based in part off old lists and after survey of current state of
>>> JIRA. The doc is open for comment. Please chime in if I am off or if I am
>>> missing something that should be included. I also make a rough estimate on
>>> state of each core item.
>>> 
>>> I intend to keep up this macro-view doc as we progress on 2.0.0 with
>>> reflection where pertinent in JIRA . Suggest we branch only when code
>>> compete on the core set most of which are complete or near-so.
>>> End-of-February should be time enough (First 2.0.0 RC in at the start of
>>> May?).
>>> 
>>> Thanks,
>>> St.Ack
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> 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.
>>>> 

Mime
View raw message