You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@hbase.apache.org by Stack <st...@duboce.net> on 2011/05/02 19:48:33 UTC
Re: putting a border around 0.92 release
Whats our thinking on 0.92.0 now May 1st has passed? Interestingly,
the numbers of blockers and criticals are the same as Andrew reports
below in the threads' first message (we won some since his email was
written but then some new ones showed up since). Online merge and
schema edits have not made it in nor has a secondary index
implementation (distributed log splitting has though).
There seemed to be a strong sense in the below thread that we should
go for mostly time-based releases anyways so we should try stabilizing
TRUNK so we can cut a 0.92.0 soon? When? This week? Looks like
it'll be two weeks at least before we nail the blockers and criticals
as is. Branch May 14th or so?
St.Ack
On Sat, Feb 26, 2011 at 12:34 PM, Andrew Purtell <ap...@apache.org> wrote:
> Stack and I were chatting on IRC about settling with should get into 0.92 before pulling the trigger on the release.
>
> Stack thinks we need online region schema editing. I agree because per-table coprocessor loading is configured via table attributes. We'd also need some kind of notification of schema update to trigger various actions in the regionserver. (For CPs, (re)load.)
>
> I'd also really like to see some form of secondary indexing. This is an important feature for HBase to have. All of our in house devs ask for this sooner or later in one form or another. Other projects have options in this arena, while HBase used to in core, but no longer. We have three people starting on this ASAP. I'd like to at least do co-design with the community. We should aim for 'simple and effective'.
>
> There are 14 blockers: https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/IssueNavigator.jspa?reset=true&jqlQuery=project+%3D+HBASE+AND+fixVersion+%3D+%220.92.0%22+AND+resolution+%3D+Unresolved+AND+priority+%3D+Blocker
>
> Additionally, 22 marked as critical: https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/IssueNavigator.jspa?reset=true&jqlQuery=project+%3D+HBASE+AND+fixVersion+%3D+%220.92.0%22+AND+resolution+%3D+Unresolved+AND+priority+%3D+Critical
>
> Best regards,
>
> - Andy
>
> Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back.
> - Piet Hein (via Tom White)
>
>
>
>
Re: putting a border around 0.92 release
Posted by Jean-Daniel Cryans <jd...@apache.org>.
I'm in favor of releasing major versions more often so that the
changes be less disruptive, the sooner the better.
We'll never know for sure, but I wonder if releasing more often
compared to waiting for those features would put those same features
in the hands of the users sooner or later. Like would releasing 0.92
without online schema edits and others and then releasing 0.94 not too
far enough would coincide with a 0.92 with all those features in
another timeline.
J-D
On Mon, May 2, 2011 at 10:48 AM, Stack <st...@duboce.net> wrote:
> Whats our thinking on 0.92.0 now May 1st has passed? Interestingly,
> the numbers of blockers and criticals are the same as Andrew reports
> below in the threads' first message (we won some since his email was
> written but then some new ones showed up since). Online merge and
> schema edits have not made it in nor has a secondary index
> implementation (distributed log splitting has though).
>
> There seemed to be a strong sense in the below thread that we should
> go for mostly time-based releases anyways so we should try stabilizing
> TRUNK so we can cut a 0.92.0 soon? When? This week? Looks like
> it'll be two weeks at least before we nail the blockers and criticals
> as is. Branch May 14th or so?
>
> St.Ack
>
>
>
> On Sat, Feb 26, 2011 at 12:34 PM, Andrew Purtell <ap...@apache.org> wrote:
>> Stack and I were chatting on IRC about settling with should get into 0.92 before pulling the trigger on the release.
>>
>> Stack thinks we need online region schema editing. I agree because per-table coprocessor loading is configured via table attributes. We'd also need some kind of notification of schema update to trigger various actions in the regionserver. (For CPs, (re)load.)
>>
>> I'd also really like to see some form of secondary indexing. This is an important feature for HBase to have. All of our in house devs ask for this sooner or later in one form or another. Other projects have options in this arena, while HBase used to in core, but no longer. We have three people starting on this ASAP. I'd like to at least do co-design with the community. We should aim for 'simple and effective'.
>>
>> There are 14 blockers: https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/IssueNavigator.jspa?reset=true&jqlQuery=project+%3D+HBASE+AND+fixVersion+%3D+%220.92.0%22+AND+resolution+%3D+Unresolved+AND+priority+%3D+Blocker
>>
>> Additionally, 22 marked as critical: https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/IssueNavigator.jspa?reset=true&jqlQuery=project+%3D+HBASE+AND+fixVersion+%3D+%220.92.0%22+AND+resolution+%3D+Unresolved+AND+priority+%3D+Critical
>>
>> Best regards,
>>
>> - Andy
>>
>> Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back.
>> - Piet Hein (via Tom White)
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
Re: putting a border around 0.92 release
Posted by Andrew Purtell <ap...@apache.org>.
I agree.
We did get code back from an internal dev group for the secondary indexing implementation but I don't think we are satisfied with its current state.
Also I have been swamped, therefore remiss, in online schema edit.
Shouldn't hold up a release on our account. Next one.
- Andy
> From: Stack <st...@duboce.net>
> Subject: Re: putting a border around 0.92 release
> To: user@hbase.apache.org, apurtell@apache.org
> Cc: dev@hbase.apache.org
> Date: Monday, May 2, 2011, 10:48 AM
> Whats our thinking on 0.92.0 now May 1st has passed? Interestingly,
> the numbers of blockers and criticals are the same as Andrew reports
> below in the threads' first message (we won some since his email was
> written but then some new ones showed up since). Online merge and
> schema edits have not made it in nor has a secondary index
> implementation (distributed log splitting has though).
Re: putting a border around 0.92 release
Posted by Andrew Purtell <ap...@apache.org>.
I agree.
We did get code back from an internal dev group for the secondary indexing implementation but I don't think we are satisfied with its current state.
Also I have been swamped, therefore remiss, in online schema edit.
Shouldn't hold up a release on our account. Next one.
- Andy
> From: Stack <st...@duboce.net>
> Subject: Re: putting a border around 0.92 release
> To: user@hbase.apache.org, apurtell@apache.org
> Cc: dev@hbase.apache.org
> Date: Monday, May 2, 2011, 10:48 AM
> Whats our thinking on 0.92.0 now May 1st has passed? Interestingly,
> the numbers of blockers and criticals are the same as Andrew reports
> below in the threads' first message (we won some since his email was
> written but then some new ones showed up since). Online merge and
> schema edits have not made it in nor has a secondary index
> implementation (distributed log splitting has though).