Re: [DISCUSS] stop minor releases for 0.98 and 1.1

[Vincent Poon <vi...@gmail.com>]

With 5 approve votes here, I think we can officially drop 4.x-HBase-0.98
and 4.x-HBase-1.1


On Wed, Jun 27, 2018 at 5:24 PM, Pedro Boado <pe...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I'm OK reducing to one single CDH-5.14 branch and dropping 5.11,5.12 and
> 5.13 support for next minor 4.15.
>
> Same for 0.98 and 1.1 .
>
> 1.2 is not really needed for maintaining a cdh branch but could still be
> relevant - isn't it still the most popular version of HBase in terms of
> adoption? - .
>
> Anyway I agree there are too many parallel branches.
>
> On Wed, 13 Jun 2018 at 03:35, Thomas D'Silva <td...@salesforce.com>
> wrote:
>
> > +1 on reducing the number of branches.
> >
> > On Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 2:03 PM, Vincent Poon <vincent.poon.us@gmail.com
> >
> > wrote:
> >
> > > big +1
> > > Commits have been way too burdensome
> > >
> > > On Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 9:08 AM, Josh Elser <el...@apache.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Also +1
> > > >
> > > > Do that after the release? Or before?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On 6/12/18 11:55 AM, James Taylor wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> Somewhat orthogonal, but we should move master to a new
> 4.x-HBase-1.4
> > > >> branch and make 5.x the master branch.
> > > >>
> > > >> On Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 8:31 AM Josh Elser <el...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> +1
> > > >>>
> > > >>> I think HBase 1.2 is soon to be dropped as well (maybe after 1.2.7,
> > but
> > > >>> I might be inventing that). I'm also not so sure about the value
> > behind
> > > >>> a 1.3 release either (I think Andrew's 1.4 branch is much more
> > > relevant).
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Getting to and HBase 1.4 and HBase 2.x sounds ideal to me
> (hopefully,
> > > we
> > > >>> can avoid a 2.0 and 2.1 schism...), and whatever CDH stuff Pedro
> > wants
> > > >>> to support.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> On 6/11/18 9:47 PM, James Taylor wrote:
> > > >>>
> > > >>>> It feels like we're trying to maintain too many branches. Both
> HBase
> > > >>>> 0.98
> > > >>>> and 1.1 have been EOLed. To ease the burden on devs, how about we
> > stop
> > > >>>> maintaining the 4.x-HBase-0.98 and 4.x-HBase-1.1 branches? An RM
> can
> > > >>>>
> > > >>> always
> > > >>>
> > > >>>> step up if need be to do a patch release from the 4.14 branches.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> Also, how about the 1.2 branch? If we kept the 4.x-cdh5.11 branch,
> > do
> > > we
> > > >>>> need the 4.x-HBase-1.2 branch?
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> It'd be good if this was decided prior to the biggish splittable
> > > system
> > > >>>> catalog work (PHOENIX-3534) and omid transaction integration
> > > >>>>
> > > >>> (PHOENIX-3623).
> > > >>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> Thanks,
> > > >>>> James
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>
> > >
> >
>

Re: [DISCUSS] stop minor releases for 0.98 and 1.1

[James Taylor <ja...@apache.org>]

This was just a discuss thread. How about starting a vote thread to make it
official?

On Mon, Jul 9, 2018 at 1:52 PM, Vincent Poon <vi...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> With 5 approve votes here, I think we can officially drop 4.x-HBase-0.98
> and 4.x-HBase-1.1
>
>
> On Wed, Jun 27, 2018 at 5:24 PM, Pedro Boado <pe...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > I'm OK reducing to one single CDH-5.14 branch and dropping 5.11,5.12 and
> > 5.13 support for next minor 4.15.
> >
> > Same for 0.98 and 1.1 .
> >
> > 1.2 is not really needed for maintaining a cdh branch but could still be
> > relevant - isn't it still the most popular version of HBase in terms of
> > adoption? - .
> >
> > Anyway I agree there are too many parallel branches.
> >
> > On Wed, 13 Jun 2018 at 03:35, Thomas D'Silva <td...@salesforce.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > +1 on reducing the number of branches.
> > >
> > > On Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 2:03 PM, Vincent Poon <
> vincent.poon.us@gmail.com
> > >
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > big +1
> > > > Commits have been way too burdensome
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 9:08 AM, Josh Elser <el...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Also +1
> > > > >
> > > > > Do that after the release? Or before?
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On 6/12/18 11:55 AM, James Taylor wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >> Somewhat orthogonal, but we should move master to a new
> > 4.x-HBase-1.4
> > > > >> branch and make 5.x the master branch.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> On Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 8:31 AM Josh Elser <el...@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> > > > >>
> > > > >> +1
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> I think HBase 1.2 is soon to be dropped as well (maybe after
> 1.2.7,
> > > but
> > > > >>> I might be inventing that). I'm also not so sure about the value
> > > behind
> > > > >>> a 1.3 release either (I think Andrew's 1.4 branch is much more
> > > > relevant).
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> Getting to and HBase 1.4 and HBase 2.x sounds ideal to me
> > (hopefully,
> > > > we
> > > > >>> can avoid a 2.0 and 2.1 schism...), and whatever CDH stuff Pedro
> > > wants
> > > > >>> to support.
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> On 6/11/18 9:47 PM, James Taylor wrote:
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>> It feels like we're trying to maintain too many branches. Both
> > HBase
> > > > >>>> 0.98
> > > > >>>> and 1.1 have been EOLed. To ease the burden on devs, how about
> we
> > > stop
> > > > >>>> maintaining the 4.x-HBase-0.98 and 4.x-HBase-1.1 branches? An RM
> > can
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>> always
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>> step up if need be to do a patch release from the 4.14 branches.
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> Also, how about the 1.2 branch? If we kept the 4.x-cdh5.11
> branch,
> > > do
> > > > we
> > > > >>>> need the 4.x-HBase-1.2 branch?
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> It'd be good if this was decided prior to the biggish splittable
> > > > system
> > > > >>>> catalog work (PHOENIX-3534) and omid transaction integration
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>> (PHOENIX-3623).
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> Thanks,
> > > > >>>> James
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>
> > > >
> > >
> >
>