hbase-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jerry He <jerry...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Moving 2.0 forward
Date Fri, 06 Jan 2017 22:57:36 GMT
I agree we need a long and stable 1.x release. Branch-1 is a good fit for
that role.
It has the stability and compatibility of 1.x, and it has still been quite
open for flow of improvements and commits.

+1


Jerry

On Fri, Jan 6, 2017 at 1:01 PM, Mikhail Antonov <olorinbant@gmail.com>
wrote:

> I support that idea of cutting branch-2 early. Yes it will create some
> burden for the RM and committers to port things between the
> branches, but until the branch is cut we won't have that sense of imminense
> of approaching release, and more importantly, until
> branch is cut _all_ commits will continue to go there, making it hard to
> stabilize.
>
> Regarding branch-1 and branch-2 release lines, agree those are unrelated
> questions. I'm all for frequent and fast updates to new versions, but
> obviously we can't drop support and development on branch-1 until 2.0 is
> released and probed by early adopters, and then not until 2.0 is as stable
> as what people running late 1.* branches currently have.
>
> Thanks,
> Mikhail
>
> On Fri, Jan 6, 2017 at 10:40 AM, Andrew Purtell <andrew.purtell@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > 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.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Thanks,
> Michael Antonov
>

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