https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-20682
This is a big problem for both branch-2 and branch-2.0 so will wait for a bit until we can make sure there is no problem. Hope this could be done this week. 2018-06-05 9:35 GMT+08:00 张铎(Duo Zhang) <palomino...@gmail.com>: > Anyway for 3.0 I think we need to have something new. > > And I think we could make use of feature branch more, so it will not delay > the release. We can focus on the progress of the most important features > and make sure they can be done before the release, and for other features, > just do not merge them back if they are not ready yet and target to the > next major/minor release. > > 2018-06-05 7:14 GMT+08:00 Josh Elser <els...@apache.org>: > >> On 6/4/18 12:16 AM, Stack wrote: >> >>> 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? >>> >> >> mmmm, that's a good point. We keep saying that we aren't going to fall >> into the same trap over and over, yet here we are setting ourselves up to >> do it again :) >> >> I would have no complaints against 2.0.0+ becoming 2.1.0, but I feel like >> that would make Duo's RM life harder too (assuming branch-2 is more stable >> than master). >> >> I honestly don't know how to balance that. Someone eventually has to bite >> the bullet :\ >> > >
