I agree we need a long and stable 1.x release. Branch-1 is a good fit for that role. It has the stability and compatibility of 1.x, and it has still been quite open for flow of improvements and commits.
+1 Jerry On Fri, Jan 6, 2017 at 1:01 PM, Mikhail Antonov <olorinb...@gmail.com> wrote: > I support that idea of cutting branch-2 early. Yes it will create some > burden for the RM and committers to port things between the > branches, but until the branch is cut we won't have that sense of imminense > of approaching release, and more importantly, until > branch is cut _all_ commits will continue to go there, making it hard to > stabilize. > > Regarding branch-1 and branch-2 release lines, agree those are unrelated > questions. I'm all for frequent and fast updates to new versions, but > obviously we can't drop support and development on branch-1 until 2.0 is > released and probed by early adopters, and then not until 2.0 is as stable > as what people running late 1.* branches currently have. > > Thanks, > Mikhail > > On Fri, Jan 6, 2017 at 10:40 AM, Andrew Purtell <andrew.purt...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > 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. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>> > > >> > > > > > > -- > Thanks, > Michael Antonov >
