For 3.3, hbase-spark module, there is HBASE-16179 which enables support for Spark 2.0 It needs some review.
Cheers > On Jan 13, 2017, at 11:25 PM, Stack <st...@duboce.net> wrote: > > 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. > (I could help out Stephen. We could co-RM?) > > >> 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. > Agree with Stephen. A bunch of stuff is half-baked so a '2.0.0' now would > be all loose ends and it'd make for a messy narrative. > > I started a doc listing state of 2.0.0: > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1WCsVlnHjJeKUcl7wHwqb4z9iEu_ktczrlKHK8N4SZzs/edit?usp=sharing > > In the doc I made an estimate of what the community considers core 2.0.0 > items based in part off old lists and after survey of current state of > JIRA. The doc is open for comment. Please chime in if I am off or if I am > missing something that should be included. I also make a rough estimate on > state of each core item. > > I intend to keep up this macro-view doc as we progress on 2.0.0 with > reflection where pertinent in JIRA . Suggest we branch only when code > compete on the core set most of which are complete or near-so. > End-of-February should be time enough (First 2.0.0 RC in at the start of > May?). > > Thanks, > St.Ack > > > >> 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. >>
