Considerations for a new branch-2 and branch-1 are orthogonal in my opinion.
I intend to volunteer to be the RM for branch-1 itself (we've not had one before) as necessary for it to become a stable source of incremental releases for a long time, similar to how we had 0.98 active for almost three years while 1.x development took place. Where I work we plan to have branch-1 based code in production for at least one year, probably longer. Given the above arrangement, releases from branch-1 and branch-2 would have independent roadmaps and release timelines. Does this sound reasonable? > On Jan 5, 2017, at 11:51 PM, Phil Yang <ud1...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi all > After cutting branch-2, what will we do for branch-1? If I am not wrong, > 1.4 may be the last 1.x release branch? Should 1.4.0 release before 2.0.0? > If not, will it confuse users? > > Thanks, > Phil > > > 2017-01-01 5:20 GMT+08:00 Andrew Purtell <andrew.purt...@gmail.com>: > >> On the other hand branching will force the issue. There will always be >> lists of issues to get in. How long have we been talking about 2.0? At >> least a year and a half. At some point it's time to stop talking and take >> action. Let me revisit progress at the end of January and bring this up >> again. As a member of the PMC I'm advising all concerned that 2.0 is >> talking too long and I am considering steps to move it forward. >> >> >>> On Dec 31, 2016, at 12:54 PM, Ted Yu <yuzhih...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> I agree with Stephen on not branching too early. >>> >>> When people come back from vacation, we can poll relevant parties on >>> estimate of respective project to get a sense of when would be proper >> time >>> for branching. >>> >>> On Sat, Dec 31, 2016 at 12:16 PM, Stephen Jiang <syuanjiang...@gmail.com >>> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Hello, Andrew, I was a helper on Matteo so that we can help each other >>>> while we are focusing on the new Assignment Manager work. Now he is not >>>> available (at least in the next few months). I have to be more focused >> on >>>> the new AM work; plus other work in my company; it would be too much >> for me >>>> to 2.0 RM alone. I am happy someone would help to take primary 2.0 RM >> role >>>> while I am still help to make this 2.0 release smooth. >>>> >>>> For branch-2, I think it is too early to cut it, as we still have a lot >> of >>>> moving parts and on-going project that needs to be part of 2.0. For >>>> example, the mentioned new AM (and other projects, such as HBASE-14414, >>>> HBASE-15179, HBASE-14070, HBASE-14850, HBASE-16833, HBASE-15531, just >> name >>>> a few). Cutting branch now would add burden to complete those projects. >>>> >>>> thanks >>>> Stephen >>>> >>>> On Sat, Dec 31, 2016 at 10:54 AM, Andrew Purtell < >> andrew.purt...@gmail.com >>>>> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hi all, >>>>> >>>>> I've heard a rumor the co-RM situation with 2.0 may have changed. Can >> we >>>>> get an update from co-RMs Matteo and Steven on their availability and >>>>> interest in continuing in this role? >>>>> >>>>> To assist in moving 2.0 forward I intend to branch branch-2 from master >>>>> next week. Unless there is an objection I will take this action under >>>>> assumption of lazy consensus. Master branch will be renumbered to >>>>> 3.0.0-SNAPSHOT. Once we have a branch-2 I will immediately begin scale >>>>> tests and stabilization (via bug fixes or reverts of unfinished work) >> and >>>>> invite interested collaborators to do the same. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>
