> What are the gate criteria on moving the stable pointer? We were waiting on feedback from Mikhail or Gary. Last I heard was it was fine over there, except one use case would trigger occasional regionserver aborts due to FNFE in storefile handling. HBASE-19728 is the latest to fix issues around storefile locking. These are getting harder to find, so the answer as to the stability of 1.3 is it is getting better, and might be good enough. Someone needs to step forward and make a credible claim to that effect. Where I work we are rolling out something based on 1.3. It is a heavy lift because most of our production is still on 0.98 and there are some nontrivial differences. We are making progress. Once we have been stable at a high scale location for several months I'll write in to claim it stable. If someone else is using 1.3 your feedback would be very valuable. In our acceptance testing 1.3 survived tests where 1.1 and 1.2 fell over, for what it's worth.
> You've been putting in a lot of hours into release duties already, Andrew, let's hope that somebody else is available I'm sure someone can step in if need be. Thanks for volunteering to run a release, though. Any time you'd like to do that I'll be happy to help you run through it if you need assistance. make_rc.sh mostly automates the process. I think all committers who have an interest in running a release should do it. It's good experience doing the one activity more than just about any other that moves the project forward. However I don't mind being RM. I enjoy it. I missed it after retiring 0.98. Getting 2.0 out is super important. I can keep the legacy code branches in good order with steady releases in the meantime. On Fri, Feb 2, 2018 at 4:28 PM, Mike Drob <mad...@cloudera.com> wrote: > What are the gate criteria on moving the stable pointer? > > IIRC there was intent to do another 1.2.x release where Sean passed the > reigns (Appy, still interested?) > > You've been putting in a lot of hours into release duties already, Andrew, > let's hope that somebody else is available. > If it can wait until March, I might be able to pick it up to take load off > of you. Otherwise, I'll keep plodding along on the 2.0 work. > > Mike > > On Fri, Feb 2, 2018 at 5:48 PM, Andrew Purtell <apurt...@apache.org> > wrote: > > > Also, the next expected release for branch-1.4, 1.4.2, will be proposed > at > > the end of March. > > > > On Fri, Feb 2, 2018 at 3:28 PM, Andrew Purtell <apurt...@apache.org> > > wrote: > > > > > The backport of RSGroups to branch-1 triggered the opening of the 1.4 > > code > > > line as branch-1.4 and releases 1.4.0 and 1.4.1. > > > > > > After the commit of HBASE-19858 (Backport HBASE-14061 (Support CF-level > > > Storage Policy) to branch-1), storage policy aware file placement might > > be > > > useful enough to trigger a new minor release from branch-1. This would > be > > > branch-1.5, and at least release 1.5.0. I am not sure about this yet. > It > > > needs testing. I'd like to mock up a couple of use cases and determine > if > > > what we have is sufficient on its own or more changes will be needed. I > > > want to get the idea of a 1.5 on your radar. though. > > > > > > Also, I would like to make one more release of branch-1.3 before we > > retire > > > it. Mikhail passed the reins. We might have a volunteer to RM 1.3.2. If > > > not, I will do it. I'm expecting 1.4 will supersede 1.3 but this will > be > > > decided organically depending on uptake. > > > > > > -- > > > Best regards, > > > Andrew > > > > > > Words like orphans lost among the crosstalk, meaning torn from truth's > > > decrepit hands > > > - A23, Crosstalk > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Best regards, > > Andrew > > > > Words like orphans lost among the crosstalk, meaning torn from truth's > > decrepit hands > > - A23, Crosstalk > > > -- Best regards, Andrew Words like orphans lost among the crosstalk, meaning torn from truth's decrepit hands - A23, Crosstalk