Hi Guys, We are still on 1.3 so it would be in our interest if I can continue to rollout 1.3.z releases. Having said that it is the oldest release branch and I understand the effort it takes to maintain another branch hence I didn't push for it unless there are other reasons than our own for keeping it going. If it works for you guys I can send an email to the user list to see if that criteria is met?
Also I was wondering if retired does that prevent us from rolling out releases with critical/needed fixes? Thanks, Francis On Tue, Dec 3, 2019 at 3:27 AM Sean Busbey <bus...@apache.org> wrote: > If it would change anyone's willingness to maintain the branch, then I > encourage them to go ask about the need on user@hbase. > > AFAIK in the year since we started talking about shutting down branch-1.3 > no committer or PMC has expressed that their interest would change if > someone on user@hbase felt stuck on 1.3.z. > > Also worth noting that in the month since the 1.3.6 announcement went out > noone has showed up to say they can't move off of the release line. > > > On Mon, Dec 2, 2019, 22:53 Andrew Purtell <andrew.purt...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > And if a non dev says they won’t move off 1.3? Will it change any > > committer or PMC minds on actually continuing to do 1.3 releases? If not > I > > think we have to call it for lack of interest and bandwidth. > > > > 1.4 is a functional superset of 1.3 and the current stable line anyway. > > Seems little reason not to upgrade save inertia or risk aversion. > > > > > > > On Dec 2, 2019, at 5:43 PM, Sean Busbey <bus...@apache.org> wrote: > > > > > > Anyone who wants branch-1.3 to keep having releases has to be willing > > > to volunteer to maintain it. If the note in the 1.3.6 release wasn't > > > sufficient motivation to get them to show up on dev@hbase to do so, I > > > could put a more explicit mention of it in the EOM message. We'd need > > > to come up with some phrasing that didn't leave the status of the > > > release line ambiguous though. > > > > > > For reference, these are the last two EOM announcements we did: > > > > > > * 2.0.z in Sep 2019: https://s.apache.org/slgsa > > > * 1.2.z in Jun 2019: https://s.apache.org/g8lnu > > > > > > 2.0 and 1.3 were never a release line with the "stable" marker on it. > > > 1.2 was the stable release line prior to 1.4. > > > > > >> On Mon, Dec 2, 2019 at 1:58 PM Misty Linville <mi...@apache.org> > wrote: > > >> > > >> Whether any non-dev users are unable to move off 1.3, I suppose. > > >> > > >>> On Mon, Dec 2, 2019 at 11:04 AM Sean Busbey <bus...@apache.org> > wrote: > > >>> > > >>> On what, specifically? > > >>> > > >>>> On Mon, Dec 2, 2019, 11:24 Misty Linville <mi...@apache.org> wrote: > > >>> > > >>>> Should the user list be allowed to weigh in? > > >>>> > > >>>> On Mon, Dec 2, 2019 at 7:33 AM Andrew Purtell < > > andrew.purt...@gmail.com> > > >>>> wrote: > > >>>> > > >>>>> I think there is a consensus on moving the stable pointer, based on > > >>>>> earlier discussion. What I would suggest is a separate thread to > > >>> propose > > >>>>> it, and if nobody objects, do it. > > >>>>> > > >>>>>> On Dec 2, 2019, at 5:14 AM, 张铎(Duo Zhang) <palomino...@gmail.com> > > >>>> wrote: > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> +1. > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> And I think it is time to move the stable pointer to 2.2.x? I know > > >>> that > > >>>>>> 2.2.x still has some bugs, especially on the procedure store, but > > >>>> anyway, > > >>>>>> we have HBCK2 to fix them. > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> And for the current stable release line, 1.4.x, the assignment > > >>> manager > > >>>>> also > > >>>>>> has bugs, as it is the reason why we introduced AMv2. > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> So I do not think bug free is the 'must have' for a stable release > > >>>> line. > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> Jan Hentschel <jan.hentsc...@ultratendency.com> 于2019年12月2日周一 > > >>>> 下午4:57写道： > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>>> +1 > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> From: Sakthi <sak...@apache.org> > > >>>>>>> Reply-To: "dev@hbase.apache.org" <dev@hbase.apache.org> > > >>>>>>> Date: Monday, December 2, 2019 at 3:32 AM > > >>>>>>> To: "dev@hbase.apache.org" <dev@hbase.apache.org> > > >>>>>>> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] EOM branch-1.3 > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> +1 > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> On Sun, Dec 1, 2019 at 6:28 PM Andrew Purtell < > > >>>> andrew.purt...@gmail.com > > >>>>>>> <mailto:andrew.purt...@gmail.com>> > > >>>>>>> wrote: > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> +1 for EOL of 1.3. > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> Onward to 1.6! > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> On Dec 1, 2019, at 5:38 PM, Sean Busbey <bus...@apache.org > > <mailto: > > >>>>>>> bus...@apache.org>> wrote: > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> Hi folks! > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> It's been about a month since the last 1.3.z release came out. > > >>> We've > > >>>>>>>> been talking about EOM for branch-1.3 for about a year. Most > > >>>> recently, > > >>>>>>>> we had a growing consensus[1] to EOM after getting the 1.3.6 > > >>> release > > >>>>>>>> out with the fixes for Jackson in HBASE-22728 out. > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> Looking at the things that have since landed in branch-1.3 and > > >>>> nothing > > >>>>>>>> looks critical (these are all Major or Minor)[2]: > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> - HBASE-23149 hbase shouldPerformMajorCompaction logic is not > > >>> correct > > >>>>>>>> - HBASE-23185 High cpu usage because getTable()#put() gets > config > > >>>>>>>> value every time > > >>>>>>>> - HBASE-23261 Region stuck in transition while splitting > > >>>>>>>> - HBASE-18439 Subclasses of o.a.h.h.chaos.actions.Action all use > > >>> the > > >>>>>>>> same logger > > >>>>>>>> - HBASE-23207 Log a region open journal > > >>>>>>>> - HBASE-23250 Log message about CleanerChore delegate > > >>> initialization > > >>>>>>>> should be at INFO > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> Someone on 1.3.6 can get all these same things fixed by > upgrading > > >>> to > > >>>>>>>> our current stable release. > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> Releases on 1.3.z started in 2017. The branch has only averaged > ~2 > > >>>>>>>> maintenance releases a year; I think reflecting a lack of > > community > > >>>>>>>> interest in maintaining the branch. For comparison 1.4 started > > >>> about > > >>>> a > > >>>>>>>> year later and has already had twice as many maintenance > releases. > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> - 1.3.0: 2017-01-16 > > >>>>>>>> - 1.3.1: 2017-04-21 > > >>>>>>>> - 1.3.2: 2018-03-07 > > >>>>>>>> - 1.3.2.1: 2018-06-13 > > >>>>>>>> - 1.3.3: 2018-12-21 > > >>>>>>>> - 1.3.5: 2019-06-10 > > >>>>>>>> - 1.3.6: 2019-10-20 > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> Any objections to shutting branch-1.3 down? If folks show up > down > > >>> the > > >>>>>>>> road and want to do the work of maintaining it for some reason, > we > > >>>> can > > >>>>>>>> always spin it up again. > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> [1]: > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> There's more background if you search farther back, but most > > >>>> recently: > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> * "Considering immediate EOL of branch-1.3 and branch-1.4" > > >>>>>>>> https://s.apache.org/f32d0 > > >>>>>>>> * https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-22728 > > >>>>>>>> * https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-22835 > > >>>>>>>> * ANNOUNCE for 1.3.6 included a warning > > >>>>>>>> "This is ought to be the last release in the 1.3 line unless > > >>>> something > > >>>>>>>> critical comes up within in the next month or so." > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> [2]: > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/projects/HBASE/versions/12346250 > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>> > > >>> > > >
