Stack, are you suggest about retiring branch-2.0? I think it is OK, since branch-2.0 is almost the same with branch-2.1 now(except some new feature on replication). Yes, agree that we should help out on branch-2.2. AMv2 changed a lot in branch-2, there may still have some work to do to make branch-2.2 stable. But at same time, I think we can mark branch-2.1 as stable. We have done tremendous work on this branch, and recently ITBLLs shows it is already stable enough(based on our internal version, but most of patches in branch-2.1 was backported) Best Regards Allan Yang
Stack <[email protected]> 于2018年11月12日周一 上午6:57写道： > Agree w/ Duo that the 2.x releases have been gated on stability watersheds > rather than features. > > What else do we need to add to HBCK2 Duo (apart from a release)? > > Related, I was going to work on a 2.0.3 release. It has been a while and a > bunch of good stability work has made it into branch-2.0. Thereafter > though, I was going to let branch-2.0 go unless demand -- Allan Yang? -- > and switch instead to helping out on branch-2.2. > > S > > On Thu, Nov 8, 2018 at 6:10 PM 张铎(Duo Zhang) <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > I think for the 2.x release the problem is that we are still busy on > making > > the code stable, or speak more clearly, to make the procedure v2 > framework > > stable... And another big problem is lacking of HBCK2 support. These > things > > are all big issues which prevent people to upgrade to 2.x. > > > > Once these things are done, I think a monthly release will not be a big > > problem to the RMs. Just simply run an ITBLL(for now it is not easy to > get > > a successful run and then we need to find out why...), and then the > > make_rc.sh can not everything for you... > > > > Sean Busbey <[email protected]> 于2018年11月9日周五 上午9:45写道： > > > > > I think it just shifts the RM burden, no? Like instead of watching e.g. > > > branch-2.2 I instead need to watch branch-2. > > > > > > On Thu, Nov 8, 2018, 17:28 Josh Elser <[email protected] wrote: > > > > > > > I think what I'd be concerned about WRT time-based releases is the > > > > burden on RM to keep the branch in a good state. Perhaps we need to > not > > > > push that onto an RM and do better about sharing that load (looking > in > > > > the mirror). > > > > > > > > However, I do like time-based releases as a means to avoid "hurt > > > > feelings" (e.g. the personal ties of a developer to a feature. "The > > > > release goes out on zzzz/yy/xx, this feature is not yet ready, can go > > > > out one month later.." etc) > > > > > > > > On 11/7/18 2:31 PM, Sean Busbey wrote: > > > > > Hi folks! > > > > > > > > > > Some time ago we talked about trying to get back on track for a > more > > > > > regular cadence of minor releases rather than maintenance releases > > > > > (like how we did back pre-1.0). That never quite worked out for the > > > > > HBase 1.y line, but is still something we could make happen for > HBase > > > > > 2. > > > > > > > > > > We're coming up on 4 months since the 2.1 release line started. ATM > > > > > there are 63 issues in JIRA that claim to be in 2.2.0 and not in > any > > > > > 2.1.z version[1]. > > > > > > > > > > The main argument against starting to do a 2.2.0 release is that > > > > > nothing springs out of that list as a "feature" that would entice > > > > > users to upgrade. Waiting for these kinds of selling points to > drive > > a > > > > > release is commonly referred to as "feature based releases." I > think > > > > > it would be fair to characterize the HBase 2.0 release as feature > > > > > based centered on AMv2. > > > > > > > > > > An alternative to feature based releases is date based releases > where > > > > > we decide that e.g. we'll have a minor release each month > regardless > > > > > of how much is included in it. This is sometimes also called "train > > > > > releases" as an analogy to how trains leave a station on a set > > > > > schedule without regard to which individual passengers are ready. > > Just > > > > > as you'd catch the next scheduled train if you miss-timed your > > > > > arrival, fixes or features that aren't ready just go in the next > > > > > regular release. > > > > > > > > > > Personally, I really like the idea of doing date based releases for > > > > > minor releases with maintenance releases essentially only happening > > on > > > > > whatever our "stable" designator points at. It would mean those who > > > > > don't want the risk and benefits of our current release-ready work > > > > > could stay on a defined path while we could move away from > > maintaining > > > > > a ton of branches, some of which don't even see releases (currently > > ~3 > > > > > that are > 3 months since a release). If some folks had a specific > > > > > need for a different minor release line and were willing to do the > > > > > backport and RM work for that line, they'd of course be free to do > > so. > > > > > > > > > > I know there are some current unknowns around 2.2 specifically. I > > > > > think stack mentioned to me that there's an upgrade consideration > > that > > > > > we need to hammer out since I don't see anything specific to 2.2 in > > > > > the "Upgrade Paths" section of the ref guide right now. While I am > > > > > interested in getting 2.2 going specifically, I'd like to make sure > > we > > > > > address the general topic of regularly getting new minor releases > > out. > > > > > If we already had an expectation that there'd be a minor release > > every > > > > > e.g. month or 2 months then I expect whatever upgrade issue would > > have > > > > > been addressed as a part of the change that caused it going in. > > > > > > > > > > What do folks think? > > > > > > > > > > [1]: > > > > > https://s.apache.org/AAma > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
