phoenix-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From James Taylor <jamestay...@apache.org>
Subject Re: 4.8.2 and/or 4.9.0
Date Wed, 02 Nov 2016 22:00:43 GMT
I'm in support of 4.8.2. I was just pointing out that we've already started
the release process for 4.9 as your prior email seemed to indicate that
perhaps you weren't aware of that.

On Wednesday, November 2, 2016, Andrew Purtell <apurtell@apache.org> wrote:

> There was an earlier discussion here regarding supporting multiple code
> lines. There seemed to be support for that. That implies maintenance of at
> least one code line prior to the most recent, no? Or otherwise nothing has
> changed, leaving all users who can't use or don't want the bleeding edge to
> patch for themselves.
>
> And, especially because 4.8.x won't work with 1.2 at all, I think a release
> that fixes that problem before moving on from 4.8 is a responsible thing to
> do.
>
>
> On Wed, Nov 2, 2016 at 2:34 PM, James Taylor <jamestaylor@apache.org
> <javascript:;>> wrote:
>
> > Sounds good, except we've already moved on to 4.9 as we're voting on it
> > now. Second RC will be up today.
> >
> > On Wednesday, November 2, 2016, Andrew Purtell <apurtell@apache.org
> <javascript:;>>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Yes please I think we need a 4.8.x that fixes PHOENIX-3407 on 1.2+
> before
> > > moving on to 4.9 and up.
> > >
> > >
> > > On Wed, Nov 2, 2016 at 2:00 PM, <larsh@apache.org <javascript:;>
> <javascript:;>> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Was going to do it this week. Then again, since 4.9.0 does not
> include
> > > the
> > > > column encoding I was less enthused about it.If we think we want a
> > 4.8.2
> > > > I'll spin an RC today.
> > > > -- Lars
> > > >
> > > >       From: Andrew Purtell <apurtell@apache.org <javascript:;>
> <javascript:;>>
> > > >  To: "dev@phoenix.apache.org <javascript:;> <javascript:;>"
<
> dev@phoenix.apache.org <javascript:;>
> > > <javascript:;>>
> > > > Cc: lars hofhansl <larsh@apache.org <javascript:;> <javascript:;>>
> > > >  Sent: Wednesday, November 2, 2016 11:41 AM
> > > >  Subject: Re: 4.8.2 and/or 4.9.0
> > > >
> > > > Right, I think we should address PHOENIX-3407 in current 4.8.x
> releases
> > > > with a fixed version of it. I don't think we can ever fully
> understand
> > > the
> > > > version usage patterns of our users. I've seen folks write in to
> HBase
> > > > lists using 4 year old releases for unfathomable reasons.
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Nov 2, 2016 at 11:38 AM, James Taylor <
> jamestaylor@apache.org <javascript:;>
> > > <javascript:;>>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Thanks, Andrew. One question: are there users on 4.8.0 or 4.8.1 who
> > > would
> > > > > not want to upgrade to 4.9.0? We're in the voting stage for a 4.9.0
> > > which
> > > > > has all the fixes in 4.8 branch (and more) and is compatible (as
> > usual)
> > > > > with 4.8 releases through rolling restarts. At SFDC, we'll move to
> > > 4.9.0.
> > > > >
> > > > > One thing is clear, though. Given PHOENIX-3407 (and HBASE-14465),
> > users
> > > > on
> > > > > HBase 1.2 should not use 4.8.0 or 4.8.1.
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > James
> > > > >
> > > > > On Wed, Nov 2, 2016 at 11:07 AM, Andrew Purtell <
> apurtell@apache.org <javascript:;>
> > > <javascript:;>>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Need help with making a 4.8.2? I could try my hand at making
a
> > > Phoenix
> > > > > > release.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Sat, Oct 15, 2016 at 7:06 PM, James Taylor <
> > > jamestaylor@apache.org <javascript:;> <javascript:;>>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Current plan is to have a 4.9.0 RC in that same timeframe
(by
> > > 10/31)
> > > > > with
> > > > > > > the column encoding work (PHOENIX-1598 and PHOENIX-2565)
and
> > > > PHOENIX-6
> > > > > > > (atomic insert/update).  If it's too much much for you
to do
> both
> > > > 4.8.2
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > > 4.9 simultaneously, I can volunteer to be the RM for 4.9.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Sat, Oct 15, 2016 at 6:42 PM, <larsh@apache.org
> <javascript:;>
> > <javascript:;>>
> > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Hi All,
> > > > > > > > we have 20 jiras against 4.8.2 some of which seem
important
> > > enough
> > > > > ...
> > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > over 200 against 4.9.0.
> > > > > > > > I think we should start keeping stable branches for
longer.As
> > > > before
> > > > > > I'll
> > > > > > > > volunteer doing 4.8.2 as well as a 4.9.0.
> > > > > > > > Let's think about a 4.8.2 in two weeks or so, unless
there're
> > > > vastly
> > > > > > > > different opinions.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > -- Lars
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > >
> > > > > >    - Andy
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back.
-
> Piet
> > > > Hein
> > > > > > (via Tom White)
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Best regards,
> > > >
> > > >   - Andy
> > > >
> > > > Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet
> > Hein
> > > > (via Tom White)
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Best regards,
> > >
> > >    - Andy
> > >
> > > Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet
> Hein
> > > (via Tom White)
> > >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Best regards,
>
>    - Andy
>
> Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet Hein
> (via Tom White)
>

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