Last time I've tried to run 1.3 builds there were issues with balancer, which are fixed now. There are several patches I definitely would like to pull in, other than that I feel we are pretty close. I'll start spinning internal builds in a few days and if things look good will start preparing RC's next week or so.
I guess we are getting to feature-complete state, I'll walk through the jiras and send detailed email over weekend. Thanks! Mikhail > On Apr 22, 2016, at 8:13 AM, Ted Yu <[email protected]> wrote: > > Mikhail: > Any plan when to spin 1.3 RC0 ? > > HBaseCon is not very far. > > I was wondering if 1.3 release can be done before HBaseCon. > > Cheers > > On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 12:54 PM, Mikhail Antonov <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> To me it's not really about individual big features (besides, big features >> might be hard to accommodate in a minor release), but enough good things to >> justify minor release. >> >> What we can have (unless I'm missing something): >> >> [Already done or to be further improved] >> - HBASE-15177 - more GC-friendly allocations in RPC services >> - HBASE-14457 - multi WAL improvements >> - HBASE-15222 - optimizations in metrics system, some more metrics >> (like HBASE-15135, HBASE-15068) >> - HBASE-15306, HBASE-15136 - improving call queues handling >> >> [To be reviewed?): >> - HBASE-15181 - date based tiered compactions (?) >> - HBASE-11290 - unlock RegionStates. There was a patch update relatively >> recently to it based on comments. >> >> [Possible?] >> - HBASE-13557 - special handling for system tables WALs >> - HBASE-13017 - keep table state in meta >> >> 1.2 was cut off mid-June 2015.. Should be enough time since then for a >> minor release. >> >> Mikhail >> >> On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 10:56 AM, Enis Söztutar <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> What are the "features" in current branch-1 that is not there in 1.2? If >>> there is none, it is not worth branching yet. >>> >>> Enis >>> >>> On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 7:57 PM, Andrew Purtell < >> [email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> No, each 0.94.x/0.96.x/98.x was or is a minor release. :-) Sometimes >> the >>>> changes in those releases could all be considered "point" in scope or >>>> effect but not always. Further supporting this point of view, when we >>> went >>>> from 0.94 to 0.96 it was a major increment, in effect, due to 'the >>>> singularity'. >>>> >>>> Doing a new minor every month would be more like a return to past state >>> of >>>> affairs, for better or worse, in my humble opinion. >>>> >>>>>> On Feb 24, 2016, at 7:46 PM, Stack <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 11:50 AM, Elliott Clark <[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Is it time to branch for 1.3 ? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> Sean did a great job getting 1.2 out. However it was a hard >> difficult >>>>>> process that I wouldn't wish on anyone. Is it time to branch for 1.3 >>> and >>>>>> start the process of stabilizing again so that we can get a monthly >>>> cadence >>>>>> for minor releases going? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Monthly cadence for minors is upping the ante. We used to be about >>>>> monthly's for point releases. >>>>> >>>>> +1 for the mighty Mikhail as RM. Sean, please UPS him the special >> robe >>>> that >>>>> he has to wear while performing his RMness duties. >>>>> >>>>> St.Ack >>
