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