I am +1 on b) because it will naturally allow for a continuation of 1.x development.
In all honesty, I found that notorious git branching model works perfectly for such situations. One thing to mention: unlike http://nvie.com/posts/a-successful-git-branching-model/ it'll force a significant number of cherry-picking from the master (and SHA1 changes on such commits). Perhaps it might be a good time to reconsider what has been working ok for Hadoop on SVN and look into something that's more natural for Git branching? Cos On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 07:16PM, Jean-Marc Spaggiari wrote: > For people voting, can you please put small comments regarding why you > prefer a solution versus the other one? Just for knowledge sharing... > > Thanks, > > JM > > > 2014-06-10 19:05 GMT-04:00 Mikhail Antonov <[email protected]>: > > > I think jiras on ZK abstraction can still get committed (I'll make sure to > > have all non-trivial patches posted on RB for discussion to make sure we > > don't accidentally introduce any instability). > > > > On jiras. > > > > Under HBASE-10909: > > - HBASE-11069 (region merge transaction) is close to completion, just > > needs rebasing/merging, so we should have the new patch soon > > - HBASE-11072 (WAL splitting) - there's progress going on here, I think > > we're going to have patch up for reviews pretty soon. > > - HBASE-11073 (abstract Zk Watcher and listeners) - should have first > > patch up for review in a week or two > > > > Besides that, we should have HBASE-4495 (get rid of CatalogTracker) too. > > > > Further steps on abstraction (involving changing/simplifying the way we > > keep state in ZK) require coordination engine (as described in consensus > > design doc), which has been proposed in hadoop-common (for the time being I > > guess we can add this engine directly to HBase to speedup development?). > > > > Mikhail > > > > > > > > > > 2014-06-10 15:46 GMT-07:00 Stack <[email protected]>: > > > > > +1 on option b) > > > > > > On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 3:28 PM, Konstantin Boudnik <[email protected]> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > +1 on the #2. > > > > > > > > One question though: do you envision that the work around coordinated > > > > replication won't be able to go into branch-1 anymore? > > > > > > > > > > Its not done and it is far along with Mikhail making good progress. I'd > > be > > > up for keeping up reviews and commit (if thats OK w/ you Mr. RM). > > > > > > How much you think could make 1.0 Cos/Mikhail? Which issues. > > > > > > St.Ack > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Thanks, > > Michael Antonov > >
