Pushed branch-2.1 at this commit.
commit a86141b6252a433ff62f5c1979d7523031da0bf2
Author: zhangduo <zhang...@apache.org>
Date: Thu Jun 21 10:14:57 2018 +0800
HBASE-20752 Make sure the regions are truly reopened after
ReopenTableRegionsProcedure
2018-06-22 15:10 GMT+08:00 张铎(Duo Zhang) <palomino...@gmail.com>:
> Hold on committing to branch-2. Will cut branch-2.1 soon.
>
> 2018-06-19 22:05 GMT+08:00 张铎(Duo Zhang) <palomino...@gmail.com>:
>
>> Moved a bunch of issues out of 2.1.0. You can add it back if you think
>> this is important for 2.1.0 release but we need to be quick. Will cut
>> branch-2.1 after finish the related issues around SCP and MRP, maybe end of
>> this week.
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>> 2018-06-13 15:00 GMT+08:00 张铎(Duo Zhang) <palomino...@gmail.com>:
>>
>>> I set HBASE-20708 as a blocker for 2.1.0 release, and I also think we
>>> need to address HBASE-20706. Will keep working on it.
>>>
>>> 2018-06-13 14:11 GMT+08:00 Stack <st...@duboce.net>:
>>>
>>>> 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.
>>>> > > > >>>>>>>
>>>> > > > >>>>>>>
>>>> > > > >>>>>>
>>>> > > > >>>>>
>>>> > > > >>>>
>>>> > > > >>>
>>>> > > > >
>>>> > > >
>>>> > >
>>>> >
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
