Mailing-List: contact dev-help@hbase.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@hbase.apache.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: saint.ack@gmail.com
In-Reply-To: <CA+7gEcjmp3gccX3TZikQQ3O7_mJbb68TMUTn-Jubcv_NoYHjfQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CA+7gEcjmp3gccX3TZikQQ3O7_mJbb68TMUTn-Jubcv_NoYHjfQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Stack <stack@duboce.net>
Date: Thu, 9 Mar 2017 11:18:49 -0800
Message-ID: <CADcMMgG8_bRe1e__hqk-UUrLLAne-5Bi7wFSshZ+SoQgq5WgTA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: A suggestion for releasing major versions faster (Was: NOTICE:
 Nice testimony on benefits of the offheap read-path work now up on our blog)
To: HBase Dev List <dev@hbase.apache.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a114694ba70a46a054a511dac
archived-at: Thu, 09 Mar 2017 19:18:55 -0000

--001a114694ba70a46a054a511dac
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 12:34 AM, Phil Yang <yangzhe1991@apache.org> wrote:
>
>
> So my suggestion is cutting branch-x faster and have some fixed period, for
> example, six month or one year?
>


You are right Phil.

The Release Managers for the minor releases have been doing a good job
keeping up a decent release cadence but we have an abysmal track record
when it comes to pushing out majors. First we were afraid to commit --
witness how long it took us to get to a 1.0 -- and then pushing out the 1.0
took a monster effort. 2.0 looks to be a repeat of the errors of 1.0. My
sense is that 2.0 is beyond saving at this stage.

Can we do 3.0 different? As per your suggestion?

St.Ack

--001a114694ba70a46a054a511dac--