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 2018/08/11 16:20:51 UTC
Re: [DISCUSS] our stable release pointer and EOM
Bumping this thread. Seems like there is no objection upping the stable
pointer to 1.4. I'll move it on Tuesday unless push back (and announce on
user@).
Thanks,
S
On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 9:33 AM Andrew Purtell <an...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Even when claiming a code line stable we can call out specific features as
> experimental, and have done so in the past. Some examples:
> - encryption
> - HFileV3
> - ZK-less assignment
>
> My thinking is in 1.4 RSGroups is the experimental feature, and in 1.5 it
> will be storage class aware file placement.
>
> If the relevant section of documentation doesn't already claim this status
> for the feature it should.
>
>
> On Mar 13, 2018, at 10:41 PM, Francis Christopher Liu <
> toffer.liu@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> I think Francis Liu might be wanting to make more releases of 1.3. If
> so,
> > and for as long as he wants to do it, we shouldn't mark it EOM obviously.
> >
> > Thanks! Yes, I'd like to continue cutting releases for 1.3 as long as we
> > are on it which may be a while.
> >
> >> As for moving the stable pointer to 1.4, I think we have consensus to do
> > it,
> >
> > Since regionserver groups is one of the big features for 1.4. I'm
> wondering
> > are we marking the feature as stable as well? I haven't had the chance to
> > review it or try it was hoping to get to it before that happens.
> >
> >
> >> On Mon, Mar 12, 2018 at 6:58 PM Yu Li <ca...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> +1 on moving the stable pointer, but before that, I'd suggest some
> >> notification in our @user mailing list. According to our 1.x usage
> survey
> >> <https://s.apache.org/1wVL> Andrew took last month, we have 47% usage
> on
> >> 1.2 and 22% on 1.3, JFYI.
> >>
> >> Best Regards,
> >> Yu
> >>
> >>> On 10 March 2018 at 06:10, Andrew Purtell <ap...@apache.org> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> I think Francis Liu might be wanting to make more releases of 1.3. If
> so,
> >>> and for as long as he wants to do it, we shouldn't mark it EOM
> obviously.
> >>>
> >>> As for moving the stable pointer to 1.4, I think we have consensus to
> do
> >>> it, and if the RM for 1.2 wants to move on and declare it EOM in about
> >> six
> >>> months, at that time if not sooner we will have to do it anyway.
> >>>
> >>>> On Fri, Mar 9, 2018 at 10:38 AM, Stack <st...@duboce.net> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> On Thu, Mar 8, 2018 at 6:40 PM, Sean Busbey <bu...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Hi folks!
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I've been working to get the test suite back to green on branch-1.2;
> >>>>> we have a lot of branches to track backport for and a non-trivial
> >>>>> amount of tech debt across all of them from the nightlies being
> >>>>> offline.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> After the stable pointer moves forward from branch-1.2 I'll keep
> >> doing
> >>>>> RM duty for it for ~6 months. Ideally I'd be doing monthly releases,
> >>>>> but that will largely depend on keeping the build green. After that,
> >>>>> it'd go EOM.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> What do y'all think about moving the stable pointer to branch-1.4 as
> >>>>> of the 1.4.2 release?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> If we move the stable pointer directly to 1.4 and skip over 1.3, what
> >>>>> do folks think about marking it EOM after we get a 1.3.2 release out?
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Makes sense to me. Interested in Andrew's take.
> >>>> S
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> Best regards,
> >>> Andrew
> >>>
> >>> Words like orphans lost among the crosstalk, meaning torn from truth's
> >>> decrepit hands
> >>> - A23, Crosstalk
> >>>
> >>
>
Re: [DISCUSS] our stable release pointer and EOM
Posted by stack <sa...@gmail.com>.
That makes sense Sean. Go for it.
S
On Sat, Aug 11, 2018, 5:05 PM Sean Busbey <bu...@apache.org> wrote:
> Mind if I do the announcement? Would like to include some expectations for
> those still on the current stable line.
>
> On Sat, Aug 11, 2018, 11:21 Stack <st...@duboce.net> wrote:
>
> > Bumping this thread. Seems like there is no objection upping the stable
> > pointer to 1.4. I'll move it on Tuesday unless push back (and announce
> on
> > user@).
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > S
> >
> > On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 9:33 AM Andrew Purtell <andrew.purtell@gmail.com
> >
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Even when claiming a code line stable we can call out specific features
> > as
> > > experimental, and have done so in the past. Some examples:
> > > - encryption
> > > - HFileV3
> > > - ZK-less assignment
> > >
> > > My thinking is in 1.4 RSGroups is the experimental feature, and in 1.5
> it
> > > will be storage class aware file placement.
> > >
> > > If the relevant section of documentation doesn't already claim this
> > status
> > > for the feature it should.
> > >
> > >
> > > On Mar 13, 2018, at 10:41 PM, Francis Christopher Liu <
> > > toffer.liu@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > >> I think Francis Liu might be wanting to make more releases of 1.3.
> If
> > > so,
> > > > and for as long as he wants to do it, we shouldn't mark it EOM
> > obviously.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks! Yes, I'd like to continue cutting releases for 1.3 as long as
> > we
> > > > are on it which may be a while.
> > > >
> > > >> As for moving the stable pointer to 1.4, I think we have consensus
> to
> > do
> > > > it,
> > > >
> > > > Since regionserver groups is one of the big features for 1.4. I'm
> > > wondering
> > > > are we marking the feature as stable as well? I haven't had the
> chance
> > to
> > > > review it or try it was hoping to get to it before that happens.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >> On Mon, Mar 12, 2018 at 6:58 PM Yu Li <ca...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> +1 on moving the stable pointer, but before that, I'd suggest some
> > > >> notification in our @user mailing list. According to our 1.x usage
> > > survey
> > > >> <https://s.apache.org/1wVL> Andrew took last month, we have 47%
> usage
> > > on
> > > >> 1.2 and 22% on 1.3, JFYI.
> > > >>
> > > >> Best Regards,
> > > >> Yu
> > > >>
> > > >>> On 10 March 2018 at 06:10, Andrew Purtell <ap...@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> > > >>>
> > > >>> I think Francis Liu might be wanting to make more releases of 1.3.
> If
> > > so,
> > > >>> and for as long as he wants to do it, we shouldn't mark it EOM
> > > obviously.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> As for moving the stable pointer to 1.4, I think we have consensus
> to
> > > do
> > > >>> it, and if the RM for 1.2 wants to move on and declare it EOM in
> > about
> > > >> six
> > > >>> months, at that time if not sooner we will have to do it anyway.
> > > >>>
> > > >>>> On Fri, Mar 9, 2018 at 10:38 AM, Stack <st...@duboce.net> wrote:
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>> On Thu, Mar 8, 2018 at 6:40 PM, Sean Busbey <bu...@apache.org>
> > > wrote:
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> Hi folks!
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> I've been working to get the test suite back to green on
> > branch-1.2;
> > > >>>>> we have a lot of branches to track backport for and a non-trivial
> > > >>>>> amount of tech debt across all of them from the nightlies being
> > > >>>>> offline.
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> After the stable pointer moves forward from branch-1.2 I'll keep
> > > >> doing
> > > >>>>> RM duty for it for ~6 months. Ideally I'd be doing monthly
> > releases,
> > > >>>>> but that will largely depend on keeping the build green. After
> > that,
> > > >>>>> it'd go EOM.
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> What do y'all think about moving the stable pointer to branch-1.4
> > as
> > > >>>>> of the 1.4.2 release?
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> If we move the stable pointer directly to 1.4 and skip over 1.3,
> > what
> > > >>>>> do folks think about marking it EOM after we get a 1.3.2 release
> > out?
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> Makes sense to me. Interested in Andrew's take.
> > > >>>> S
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>> --
> > > >>> Best regards,
> > > >>> Andrew
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Words like orphans lost among the crosstalk, meaning torn from
> > truth's
> > > >>> decrepit hands
> > > >>> - A23, Crosstalk
> > > >>>
> > > >>
> > >
> >
>
Re: [DISCUSS] our stable release pointer and EOM
Posted by Sean Busbey <bu...@apache.org>.
Mind if I do the announcement? Would like to include some expectations for
those still on the current stable line.
On Sat, Aug 11, 2018, 11:21 Stack <st...@duboce.net> wrote:
> Bumping this thread. Seems like there is no objection upping the stable
> pointer to 1.4. I'll move it on Tuesday unless push back (and announce on
> user@).
>
> Thanks,
>
> S
>
> On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 9:33 AM Andrew Purtell <an...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Even when claiming a code line stable we can call out specific features
> as
> > experimental, and have done so in the past. Some examples:
> > - encryption
> > - HFileV3
> > - ZK-less assignment
> >
> > My thinking is in 1.4 RSGroups is the experimental feature, and in 1.5 it
> > will be storage class aware file placement.
> >
> > If the relevant section of documentation doesn't already claim this
> status
> > for the feature it should.
> >
> >
> > On Mar 13, 2018, at 10:41 PM, Francis Christopher Liu <
> > toffer.liu@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > >> I think Francis Liu might be wanting to make more releases of 1.3. If
> > so,
> > > and for as long as he wants to do it, we shouldn't mark it EOM
> obviously.
> > >
> > > Thanks! Yes, I'd like to continue cutting releases for 1.3 as long as
> we
> > > are on it which may be a while.
> > >
> > >> As for moving the stable pointer to 1.4, I think we have consensus to
> do
> > > it,
> > >
> > > Since regionserver groups is one of the big features for 1.4. I'm
> > wondering
> > > are we marking the feature as stable as well? I haven't had the chance
> to
> > > review it or try it was hoping to get to it before that happens.
> > >
> > >
> > >> On Mon, Mar 12, 2018 at 6:58 PM Yu Li <ca...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> +1 on moving the stable pointer, but before that, I'd suggest some
> > >> notification in our @user mailing list. According to our 1.x usage
> > survey
> > >> <https://s.apache.org/1wVL> Andrew took last month, we have 47% usage
> > on
> > >> 1.2 and 22% on 1.3, JFYI.
> > >>
> > >> Best Regards,
> > >> Yu
> > >>
> > >>> On 10 March 2018 at 06:10, Andrew Purtell <ap...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>> I think Francis Liu might be wanting to make more releases of 1.3. If
> > so,
> > >>> and for as long as he wants to do it, we shouldn't mark it EOM
> > obviously.
> > >>>
> > >>> As for moving the stable pointer to 1.4, I think we have consensus to
> > do
> > >>> it, and if the RM for 1.2 wants to move on and declare it EOM in
> about
> > >> six
> > >>> months, at that time if not sooner we will have to do it anyway.
> > >>>
> > >>>> On Fri, Mar 9, 2018 at 10:38 AM, Stack <st...@duboce.net> wrote:
> > >>>>
> > >>>>> On Thu, Mar 8, 2018 at 6:40 PM, Sean Busbey <bu...@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Hi folks!
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> I've been working to get the test suite back to green on
> branch-1.2;
> > >>>>> we have a lot of branches to track backport for and a non-trivial
> > >>>>> amount of tech debt across all of them from the nightlies being
> > >>>>> offline.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> After the stable pointer moves forward from branch-1.2 I'll keep
> > >> doing
> > >>>>> RM duty for it for ~6 months. Ideally I'd be doing monthly
> releases,
> > >>>>> but that will largely depend on keeping the build green. After
> that,
> > >>>>> it'd go EOM.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> What do y'all think about moving the stable pointer to branch-1.4
> as
> > >>>>> of the 1.4.2 release?
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> If we move the stable pointer directly to 1.4 and skip over 1.3,
> what
> > >>>>> do folks think about marking it EOM after we get a 1.3.2 release
> out?
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Makes sense to me. Interested in Andrew's take.
> > >>>> S
> > >>>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> --
> > >>> Best regards,
> > >>> Andrew
> > >>>
> > >>> Words like orphans lost among the crosstalk, meaning torn from
> truth's
> > >>> decrepit hands
> > >>> - A23, Crosstalk
> > >>>
> > >>
> >
>