On Mon, Jun 2, 2014 at 10:25 AM, Andrew Purtell <apurt...@apache.org> wrote:
> An email from JIRA reminds me that we should also have the ZooKeeper > related refactoring complete in 1.0 before releasing it. That work is > pretty far along and needs all bits in place to be useful. > Agreed that it will be good to get this completed. However, they are mostly internal interfaces and I am not sure whether all the changes required will be done in time. We can continue on this even after 1.0, no? > > > On Mon, Jun 2, 2014 at 10:23 AM, Andrew Purtell <apurt...@apache.org> > wrote: > > > HBASE-10856 has 8 open subtasks, 6 of which are not assigned. > > > > Four other JIRAs (HBASE-9864, HBASE-11122, HBASE-11124, and HBASE-11225) > > are incorporated by reference and are open. Those could be dropped. All > but > > HBASE-11122 represent significant work. > > > > My guess based on the lack of activity on the 1.0 JIRA is it will be open > > for a long time without much attention. Perhaps we can instead move much > > to a new JIRA serving as an umbrella for 1.1 and call 1.0 as imminent. > > Merge HBASE-10070 into trunk - if the vote passes - and then only keep > the > > issues for updating documentation and testing rolling restart / compat > with > > 0.98? > I would like to get HBASE-10070 merged. Let me start the VOTE, now that the DISCUSSION thread died down. > > > > > > On Mon, Jun 2, 2014 at 10:11 AM, Stack <st...@duboce.net> wrote: > > > >> 1.0.0 has been going on for a while now. Master has a bunch of good > stuff > >> in it . What are we thinking of as a release date for the first 0.99.0 > >> and > >> for 1.0.0 itself? > I think we can cut 0.99 in a couple of weeks. I was aiming Aug timeframe for an eventual 1.0 release. After that we will have a branch that we can selectively include features only needed for the release. > >> > >> Thanks, > >> St.Ack > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 11:26 AM, Stack <st...@duboce.net> wrote: > >> > >> > Andrew is talking of the first 0.98RC being imminent. > >> > > >> > Time to start in on the release that will follow 0.98.x. We seem to > all > >> > be good with calling it 1.0.0. Speak up if you think different. (I > just > >> > added a 1.0.0 version to JIRA). > >> > > >> > + What should 1.0.0 have in it beyond what is in 0.98. > >> > + Why can't 1.0.0 just be 0.98.0, or 0.98.1 altogether? > >> > + When should it come out? I'm thinking soon after 0.98. Feb/March? > >> > (Presuming 0.98 ships in Jan). > >> > + Who should RM it? (I could but perhaps others are interested). > >> > > >> > What else should we consider achieving the state of 1.0.0ness? > >> > > >> > Happy New Year all, > >> > St.Ack > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > -- > > 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) >
