Mind if I do the announcement? Would like to include some expectations for
those still on the current stable line.

On Sat, Aug 11, 2018, 11:21 Stack <st...@duboce.net> wrote:

> 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
> > >>>
> > >>
> >
>

Reply via email to