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? > > Dang. Its time to push out a new release -- it is > 6 weeks since 2.0.0 -- but I'll just call it 2.0.1. It has 70+ fixes in it which is an awful lot for a patch release (It is our first release after a major so we might allow ourselves some slack) but they are just bug fixes and some perf improvements; it doesn't feel substantial enough (yet) to claim 2.1.0. I can see 2.0.2, 2.0.3 coming at about same interval but again just bug fixes and perf: no new features. I relinquish any claim on 2.1.0. 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. > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > >
