On Sun, Jun 3, 2018 at 8:54 PM, 张铎(Duo Zhang) <palomino...@gmail.com> wrote:
> What;s your plan sir? Branch branch-2.1 from branch-2.0? > > Its a suggestion. I like Andrew's notion that we left-shift how we have been thinking about version numbers; that we releases tend toward minor increments rather than patch increments as we have been doing up to this. If we are going to act on Andrew's suggestion, now is the time to do it. 2.0.0 was rough. 2.1.0 could be branched from branch-2.0 being 2.0.0 but with 100+ bug and perf fixes. I could even see folks deploying a 2.1.0 in production. Perhaps there'll be a 2.2.0 and a 2.3.0. They'll be boring bug and perf improvements only. We already have enough to define a substantial 3.0.0 IMO what with serial replication and HBASE-20312 CCSMap. I'm trying to avoid 3.0.0 being like 2.0.0 where it takes years for it to ship. Meantime we accumulate a mountain of testing, perf, and whatever else tech debt. What do folks think? Thanks, S > 2018-06-04 11:50 GMT+08:00 Stack <st...@duboce.net>: > > > On Sun, Jun 3, 2018 at 5:36 PM, 张铎(Duo Zhang) <palomino...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > > > Will cut the 2.1 branch tomorrow if no objections. The unfinished > > features > > > will be disabled by default or purged from branch-2.1 and target to 2.2 > > > release. > > > > > > > > I was thinking that the next release off branch-2.0 could be 2.1.0. It > has > > 70+ commits including a big boost in perf. It feels more like a minor > > release than it does a point release. > > > > Branch 3.0.0 rather than 2.1.0 Duo? > > > > S > > > > > > > > > 2018-05-17 14:19 GMT+08:00 张铎(Duo Zhang) <palomino...@gmail.com>: > > > > > > > Plan to cut branch-2.1 at the end of May. Will consider the status of > > the > > > > new features at that time to determine what will be released with > 2.1.x > > > > release line. > > > > > > > > 2018-05-08 10:16 GMT+08:00 Josh Elser <els...@apache.org>: > > > > > > > >> Big big big +1 > > > >> > > > >> (Came in to say just this but you beat me to it :D) > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> On 5/7/18 12:07 AM, 张铎(Duo Zhang) wrote: > > > >> > > > >>> Let's do big features in 3.0.0 only. > > > >>> > > > >>> Ideally there will no big new features for a minor release, so that > > we > > > >>> can > > > >>> move the stable pointer to newer minor versions quickly and retire > > the > > > >>> old > > > >>> branches. It will be a nightmare if we have lots of active minor > > > release > > > >>> lines... > > > >>> > > > >>> 2018-05-07 14:53 GMT+08:00 Guanghao Zhang <zghao...@gmail.com>: > > > >>> > > > >>> Why 2.1 doesn't contatin synchronous replication? This can be a > > > >>>> experiment > > > >>>> feature in 2.1? > > > >>>> > > > >>>> 2018-05-07 14:41 GMT+08:00 张铎(Duo Zhang) <palomino...@gmail.com>: > > > >>>> > > > >>>> 2018-05-07 14:38 GMT+08:00 Chia-Ping Tsai <chia7...@apache.org>: > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> As I volunteered to be the release manager for the 2.1 release > line > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>> so > > > >>>> > > > >>>>> let > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> me bring this up. > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>> +1 to Duo be RM of 2.1 release. > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> disabled from 2.0.0 release, for example, serial replication, > and > > in > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>> memory compaction > > > >>>>>> IIRC, in memory compaction is enabled in 2.0 and the default > > policy > > > is > > > >>>>>> BASIC. (please correct me if I misunderstand something.) > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> We disabled it by default in the end due to some performance > > > issues... > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>>> For the 2.1 release line, I would like to define it as the > 'real' > > > 2.x > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>> Seems the release date between 2.0 and 2.1 will be very close. > Is > > it > > > >>>>>> related to our new release plan? (IIRC, Andrew had suggested > some > > > >>>>>> great > > > >>>>>> release plan based time. But I fail to find the thread...) > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> And for the 3.0.0 release, I think the new features should be > > > decided > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>> ASAP. > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> We need to avoid the same thing happens again, i.e, spending 2 > > > years > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>> to > > > >>>> > > > >>>>> release a major version... > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>> agreed! > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> On 2018/05/07 00:52:07, 张铎(Duo Zhang) <palomino...@gmail.com> > > > wrote: > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> As I volunteered to be the release manager for the 2.1 release > > line > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>> so > > > >>>> > > > >>>>> let > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> me bring this up. > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> For the 2.1 release line, I would like to define it as the > 'real' > > > 2.x > > > >>>>>>> version of HBase. It should include the features which are > > reverted > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>> or > > > >>>> > > > >>>>> disabled from 2.0.0 release, for example, serial replication, and > > in > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>> memory > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> compaction. And also, the performance issues. And no more new > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>> features. > > > >>>> > > > >>>>> If > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> no objections, I will start the release work soon. > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> And for the 3.0.0 release, I think the new features should be > > > decided > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>> ASAP. > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> We need to avoid the same thing happens again, i.e, spending 2 > > > years > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>> to > > > >>>> > > > >>>>> release a major version... > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> For now, the new features > > > >>>>>>> Synchronous replication > > > >>>>>>> CCSMap > > > >>>>>>> Backup > > > >>>>>>> Spark connector(is it still active?) > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> And I suggest that we include this: > > > >>>>>>> The read path refactoring(HBASE-20525) > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> Suggestions are welcomed. > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> Thanks. > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > >
