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 Fri, 06 Jan 2017 18:40:37 GMT
Considerations for a new branch-2 and branch-1 are orthogonal in my opinion. 

I intend to volunteer to be the RM for branch-1 itself (we've not had one before) as necessary
for it to become a stable source of incremental releases for a long time, similar to how we
had 0.98 active for almost three years while 1.x development took place. Where I work we plan
to have branch-1 based code in production for at least one year, probably longer. 

Given the above arrangement, releases from branch-1 and branch-2 would have independent roadmaps
and release timelines. 

Does this sound reasonable? 

> On Jan 5, 2017, at 11:51 PM, Phil Yang <ud1937@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi all
> After cutting branch-2, what will we do for branch-1? If I am not wrong,
> 1.4 may be the last 1.x release branch? Should 1.4.0 release before 2.0.0?
> If not, will it confuse users?
> Thanks,
> Phil
> 2017-01-01 5:20 GMT+08:00 Andrew Purtell <andrew.purtell@gmail.com>:
>> 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