Return-Path: X-Original-To: archive-asf-public-internal@cust-asf2.ponee.io Delivered-To: archive-asf-public-internal@cust-asf2.ponee.io Received: from cust-asf.ponee.io (cust-asf.ponee.io [163.172.22.183]) by cust-asf2.ponee.io (Postfix) with ESMTP id 37CE9200C52 for ; Mon, 10 Apr 2017 21:08:08 +0200 (CEST) Received: by cust-asf.ponee.io (Postfix) id 3645D160B99; Mon, 10 Apr 2017 19:08:08 +0000 (UTC) Delivered-To: archive-asf-public@cust-asf.ponee.io Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by cust-asf.ponee.io (Postfix) with SMTP id 7E784160B7F for ; Mon, 10 Apr 2017 21:08:07 +0200 (CEST) Received: (qmail 45160 invoked by uid 500); 10 Apr 2017 19:08:06 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@hbase.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: dev@hbase.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list dev@hbase.apache.org Received: (qmail 45130 invoked by uid 99); 10 Apr 2017 19:08:06 -0000 Received: from pnap-us-west-generic-nat.apache.org (HELO spamd2-us-west.apache.org) (209.188.14.142) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Mon, 10 Apr 2017 19:08:06 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by spamd2-us-west.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at spamd2-us-west.apache.org) with ESMTP id BE6311A5F18; Mon, 10 Apr 2017 19:08:05 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at spamd2-us-west.apache.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 1.98 X-Spam-Level: * X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.98 tagged_above=-999 required=6.31 tests=[DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=2, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=disabled Authentication-Results: spamd2-us-west.apache.org (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com Received: from mx1-lw-us.apache.org ([10.40.0.8]) by localhost (spamd2-us-west.apache.org [10.40.0.9]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id rCYaAOtKmP-M; Mon, 10 Apr 2017 19:08:04 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-yb0-f179.google.com (mail-yb0-f179.google.com [209.85.213.179]) by mx1-lw-us.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at mx1-lw-us.apache.org) with ESMTPS id 05B575FB5B; Mon, 10 Apr 2017 19:08:04 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-yb0-f179.google.com with SMTP id l201so37738519ybf.0; Mon, 10 Apr 2017 12:08:03 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id :subject:to:cc; bh=cDlfhitZGs0MTHMS5HD7sd7JO0Z4oIyqjTWbcBUaI1c=; b=ol4vnxpkaMAZPm2cKaCVq7cBfDOz4iv3feb4McX6SbKZ2DwzK1EdyRz9Pn42jbTcOb QJZAp5CYyKV4H5Y+A51z4oJTs8Vpi91tfLtfcdJo4kxaMixyDZVub7/EMfzWitZ2vNRn YVa2C+3VvcRBCFHoOWsdAFqv8XjzAszk34q5pxDipqfCN1av/Ce+BGD0/JPsV5L0ACqd 9HS3MM2BxuYcrRksrumaO9kKPuxIAgg9h2vqgwodBs52dEhFi3KYZ+Ckuf3QMZbk3NDT /WdII8+7xRj0zw8bwYOPLkEhQsG8H241VPVjEpvUsj6q7hG51yhBY9LhQjqKswFvqons 5rfg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from :date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=cDlfhitZGs0MTHMS5HD7sd7JO0Z4oIyqjTWbcBUaI1c=; b=uVT1UADLjJEYX6R4O9qRfxDFLdvyL5DCZPZvm9f56cuj7yJb6tFua4nuzV61UBnuIs ptVCsUxQ8p++XFe4y1cTZFYTYqembv/A0dfxUlMsjTeSAL7jFjAOwkNgPby6VMwcNeGZ DzmZpHXJ+IcfYw5IyDaZVaQ1PWQIRHPC2ZR2Q34YyfbuwoAQ6ro5Z/6C3MHThmF3s7XH pdE6y41lXzl1CqVfz4D/JGIpI5RktgkHxAvJkp1wJVBALXYCHu/5u1DO5mlqT1jQ4+Wb NWoSokgaNX7swVJmvmBeL3sThH+mPCq14ylzqlSeEol0AycYfMRoqxFYgBDJK/SRmGJr ZUvw== X-Gm-Message-State: AN3rC/6HCRQTFQZfLl9NSpCqshoNMdaLSUs1EWtc6MsLpWGA4Em1ui2J043aQ0Hy/NISiZU8FrRjx9EPc5Hrag== X-Received: by 10.129.52.141 with SMTP id b135mr5215243ywa.85.1491851283472; Mon, 10 Apr 2017 12:08:03 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: saint.ack@gmail.com Received: by 10.37.79.84 with HTTP; Mon, 10 Apr 2017 12:08:03 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: From: Stack Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2017 12:08:03 -0700 X-Google-Sender-Auth: sx2GwYZBXZR2vZty46g2GrXrC8I Message-ID: Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Status of the 0.98 release line To: HBase Dev List Cc: "user@hbase.apache.org" Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11408984cf2813054cd4b1e5 archived-at: Mon, 10 Apr 2017 19:08:08 -0000 --001a11408984cf2813054cd4b1e5 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 I agree we should EOL 0.98. St.Ack On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 11:43 AM, Andrew Purtell wrote: > Please speak up if it is incorrect to interpret the lack of responses as > indicating consensus on declaring 0.98 EOL. > > I believe we should declare 0.98 EOL. > > > On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 6:56 AM, Sean Busbey wrote: > > > Hi Folks! > > > > Back in January our Andrew Purtell stepped down as the release > > manager for the 0.98 release line. > > > > On the resultant dev@hbase thread[1] folks seemed largely in favor of > > declaring end-of-maintenance for the 0.98 line. > > > > Now that it's been a couple of months, does anyone have concerns about > > pushing forward on that? > > > > Do folks who listen on user@hbase but not dev@hbase have any concerns? > > > > As with any end-of-maintenance branch, the PMC would consider on a > > case-by-case basis doing a future release of the branch should a > > critical security vulnerability show up. > > > > > > [1]: https://s.apache.org/DjCi > > > > -busbey > > > > > > -- > Best regards, > > - Andy > > If you are given a choice, you believe you have acted freely. - Raymond > Teller (via Peter Watts) > --001a11408984cf2813054cd4b1e5--