Bumping this thread. Seems like there is no objection upping the stable pointer to 1.4. I'll move it on Tuesday unless push back (and announce on user@).
Thanks, S On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 9:33 AM Andrew Purtell <andrew.purt...@gmail.com> wrote: > Even when claiming a code line stable we can call out specific features as > experimental, and have done so in the past. Some examples: > - encryption > - HFileV3 > - ZK-less assignment > > My thinking is in 1.4 RSGroups is the experimental feature, and in 1.5 it > will be storage class aware file placement. > > If the relevant section of documentation doesn't already claim this status > for the feature it should. > > > On Mar 13, 2018, at 10:41 PM, Francis Christopher Liu < > toffer....@gmail.com> wrote: > > >> I think Francis Liu might be wanting to make more releases of 1.3. If > so, > > and for as long as he wants to do it, we shouldn't mark it EOM obviously. > > > > Thanks! Yes, I'd like to continue cutting releases for 1.3 as long as we > > are on it which may be a while. > > > >> As for moving the stable pointer to 1.4, I think we have consensus to do > > it, > > > > Since regionserver groups is one of the big features for 1.4. I'm > wondering > > are we marking the feature as stable as well? I haven't had the chance to > > review it or try it was hoping to get to it before that happens. > > > > > >> On Mon, Mar 12, 2018 at 6:58 PM Yu Li <car...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > >> +1 on moving the stable pointer, but before that, I'd suggest some > >> notification in our @user mailing list. According to our 1.x usage > survey > >> <https://s.apache.org/1wVL> Andrew took last month, we have 47% usage > on > >> 1.2 and 22% on 1.3, JFYI. > >> > >> Best Regards, > >> Yu > >> > >>> On 10 March 2018 at 06:10, Andrew Purtell <apurt...@apache.org> wrote: > >>> > >>> I think Francis Liu might be wanting to make more releases of 1.3. If > so, > >>> and for as long as he wants to do it, we shouldn't mark it EOM > obviously. > >>> > >>> As for moving the stable pointer to 1.4, I think we have consensus to > do > >>> it, and if the RM for 1.2 wants to move on and declare it EOM in about > >> six > >>> months, at that time if not sooner we will have to do it anyway. > >>> > >>>> On Fri, Mar 9, 2018 at 10:38 AM, Stack <st...@duboce.net> wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> On Thu, Mar 8, 2018 at 6:40 PM, Sean Busbey <bus...@apache.org> > wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> Hi folks! > >>>>> > >>>>> I've been working to get the test suite back to green on branch-1.2; > >>>>> we have a lot of branches to track backport for and a non-trivial > >>>>> amount of tech debt across all of them from the nightlies being > >>>>> offline. > >>>>> > >>>>> After the stable pointer moves forward from branch-1.2 I'll keep > >> doing > >>>>> RM duty for it for ~6 months. Ideally I'd be doing monthly releases, > >>>>> but that will largely depend on keeping the build green. After that, > >>>>> it'd go EOM. > >>>>> > >>>>> What do y'all think about moving the stable pointer to branch-1.4 as > >>>>> of the 1.4.2 release? > >>>>> > >>>>> If we move the stable pointer directly to 1.4 and skip over 1.3, what > >>>>> do folks think about marking it EOM after we get a 1.3.2 release out? > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Makes sense to me. Interested in Andrew's take. > >>>> S > >>>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> -- > >>> Best regards, > >>> Andrew > >>> > >>> Words like orphans lost among the crosstalk, meaning torn from truth's > >>> decrepit hands > >>> - A23, Crosstalk > >>> > >> >
