You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@hbase.apache.org by Andrew Purtell <an...@gmail.com> on 2019/09/25 14:55:23 UTC
Moving the stable pointer forward
In a recent discussion regarding hbck parity between branches 1 and 2, Stack also proposed moving the stable pointer forward to 2.2. Raising this as a separate point of discussion because I think it is time.
What do others think?
What is the in production experience with 2.2? Can anyone offer testimonial?
If more need be done, what is the consensus criteria for moving the stable pointer forward?
Also, I think we should add another stable pointer, like “stable-1”, to point at 1.4.11 after it is released. To be updated to 1.5.0 after it is released (I promise a renewed push when back from vacation next week) and after we confirm it stable under load where I work (at least) and under long term ITBLL stress. I mention this to get it out of the way. The state of branch-1 should be mostly orthogonal to this discussion. It’s time to declare HBase 2 stable and move the pointer forward to acknowledge this.
Re: Moving the stable pointer forward
Posted by "张铎 (Duo Zhang)" <pa...@gmail.com>.
Still waiting for the 2.2.3 release...
Will start a vote after 2.2.3 is out.
Yu Li <ca...@gmail.com> 于2020年1月7日周二 上午11:38写道：
> Suggest to revive the discussion here as mentioned in the "EOM branch-1.3"
> thread [1] as well as our last quarter's board report [2].
>
> Best Regards,
> Yu
>
> [1] https://s.apache.org/yubrf
> [2] https://s.apache.org/e804z
>
>
> On Fri, 27 Sep 2019 at 00:04, Stack <st...@duboce.net> wrote:
>
> > Thanks for starting up this thread Andrew. Lets move the stable pointer
> if
> > a vote or two that branch-2.2 is basically working for folks . We could
> > push a new release -- a 2.2.3 which had bug fixes only -- and move the
> > stable pointer here. It helps that hbase-operator-tools w/ a 1.0.0 hbck2
> > was released yesterday.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > S
> >
> > On Wed, Sep 25, 2019 at 7:55 AM Andrew Purtell <andrew.purtell@gmail.com
> >
> > wrote:
> >
> > > In a recent discussion regarding hbck parity between branches 1 and 2,
> > > Stack also proposed moving the stable pointer forward to 2.2. Raising
> > this
> > > as a separate point of discussion because I think it is time.
> > >
> > > What do others think?
> > >
> > > What is the in production experience with 2.2? Can anyone offer
> > > testimonial?
> > >
> > > If more need be done, what is the consensus criteria for moving the
> > stable
> > > pointer forward?
> > >
> > > Also, I think we should add another stable pointer, like “stable-1”, to
> > > point at 1.4.11 after it is released. To be updated to 1.5.0 after it
> is
> > > released (I promise a renewed push when back from vacation next week)
> and
> > > after we confirm it stable under load where I work (at least) and under
> > > long term ITBLL stress. I mention this to get it out of the way. The
> > state
> > > of branch-1 should be mostly orthogonal to this discussion. It’s time
> to
> > > declare HBase 2 stable and move the pointer forward to acknowledge
> this.
> > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: Moving the stable pointer forward
Posted by Yu Li <ca...@gmail.com>.
Suggest to revive the discussion here as mentioned in the "EOM branch-1.3"
thread [1] as well as our last quarter's board report [2].
Best Regards,
Yu
[1] https://s.apache.org/yubrf
[2] https://s.apache.org/e804z
On Fri, 27 Sep 2019 at 00:04, Stack <st...@duboce.net> wrote:
> Thanks for starting up this thread Andrew. Lets move the stable pointer if
> a vote or two that branch-2.2 is basically working for folks . We could
> push a new release -- a 2.2.3 which had bug fixes only -- and move the
> stable pointer here. It helps that hbase-operator-tools w/ a 1.0.0 hbck2
> was released yesterday.
>
> Thanks,
> S
>
> On Wed, Sep 25, 2019 at 7:55 AM Andrew Purtell <an...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > In a recent discussion regarding hbck parity between branches 1 and 2,
> > Stack also proposed moving the stable pointer forward to 2.2. Raising
> this
> > as a separate point of discussion because I think it is time.
> >
> > What do others think?
> >
> > What is the in production experience with 2.2? Can anyone offer
> > testimonial?
> >
> > If more need be done, what is the consensus criteria for moving the
> stable
> > pointer forward?
> >
> > Also, I think we should add another stable pointer, like “stable-1”, to
> > point at 1.4.11 after it is released. To be updated to 1.5.0 after it is
> > released (I promise a renewed push when back from vacation next week) and
> > after we confirm it stable under load where I work (at least) and under
> > long term ITBLL stress. I mention this to get it out of the way. The
> state
> > of branch-1 should be mostly orthogonal to this discussion. It’s time to
> > declare HBase 2 stable and move the pointer forward to acknowledge this.
> >
> >
>
Re: Moving the stable pointer forward
Posted by Stack <st...@duboce.net>.
Thanks for starting up this thread Andrew. Lets move the stable pointer if
a vote or two that branch-2.2 is basically working for folks . We could
push a new release -- a 2.2.3 which had bug fixes only -- and move the
stable pointer here. It helps that hbase-operator-tools w/ a 1.0.0 hbck2
was released yesterday.
Thanks,
S
On Wed, Sep 25, 2019 at 7:55 AM Andrew Purtell <an...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> In a recent discussion regarding hbck parity between branches 1 and 2,
> Stack also proposed moving the stable pointer forward to 2.2. Raising this
> as a separate point of discussion because I think it is time.
>
> What do others think?
>
> What is the in production experience with 2.2? Can anyone offer
> testimonial?
>
> If more need be done, what is the consensus criteria for moving the stable
> pointer forward?
>
> Also, I think we should add another stable pointer, like “stable-1”, to
> point at 1.4.11 after it is released. To be updated to 1.5.0 after it is
> released (I promise a renewed push when back from vacation next week) and
> after we confirm it stable under load where I work (at least) and under
> long term ITBLL stress. I mention this to get it out of the way. The state
> of branch-1 should be mostly orthogonal to this discussion. It’s time to
> declare HBase 2 stable and move the pointer forward to acknowledge this.
>
>