Let me add I'd switch my thinking to +1 for retiring 1.1 if, now that we have a 1.3.0RC0 shaping up, it turns out the 1.3 code line can survive the same 1B ITBLL testing that 1.1 does (and 1.2 does not).
On Fri, Nov 4, 2016 at 9:52 AM, Andrew Purtell <[email protected]> wrote: > I'm -1 on this idea, for now. > > We have been evaluating 1.1 and 1.2 for upgrade and whereas 1.1 will > survive all testing including large scale ITBLL tests, 1.2 will not - no > 1.2, from 1.2.0 on up. I've found one issue (fixed), and am now trying to > nail down another. > > I would like to see two things: > > 1. Others in the community step up to evaluate the stability of 1.1.7 > versus 1.2.3 (or .4) using ITBLL with at least 1B rows of data, and report > in. Is it just me? > > 2. We do not declare 1.1 EOL until 1.2 is unquestionable stable according > to the most practical rigor we can throw at it with our tooling. Especially > because I still plan to resign as 0.98 RM soon, which I think will trigger > an EOL of that code line. > > I will be resigning as 0.98 RM effective January 1 2017 and at that time > the community can discuss what to do with 0.98. From my point of view, I'm > done with spending time on it. Happy to take some of the time freed up and > use it to carry 1.1 forward if we are still making releases off this code > line then. > > > On Fri, Nov 4, 2016 at 9:24 AM, Nick Dimiduk <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Hello HBase Community! >> >> We have a small matter to discuss. >> >> HBase 1.2 has been formally marked as "stable" for the last couple months. >> HBase 1.3.0rc0 is just around the corner. I think it's time to start a >> conversation about retiring the 1.1 line. The volunteer bandwidth for >> maintaining multiple branches is precious and as we spread ourselves more >> thin, odds of decay increase. >> >> I propose discontinuing 1.1 with a single release following 1.3.1. That'll >> give us one last chance to back port any bug fixes discovered in the >> diligence we're putting into the new minor release. Given the current pace >> of 1.3, I estimate this will happen in January or February of 2017. It's >> not a lot of time for existing deployments to get around to upgrading, but >> the upgrade path is trivial and 1.2 has been available for quite some >> time. This will probably make our last release from this branch at 1.1.10 >> or there abouts. >> >> Are there any objections or concerns with the above plan? Are there any >> downstream communities who need our help moving onto 1.2? Please let us >> know. >> >> Thanks, >> Nick >> > > > > -- > 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)
