hbase-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Eric Charles <e...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Moving 2.0 forward
Date Sat, 14 Jan 2017 20:30:43 GMT
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.

View raw message