Still waiting for the 2.2.3 release... Will start a vote after 2.2.3 is out.
Yu Li <[email protected]> 于2020年1月7日周二 上午11:38写道： > Suggest to revive the discussion here as mentioned in the "EOM branch-1.3" > thread [1] as well as our last quarter's board report [2]. > > Best Regards, > Yu > > [1] https://s.apache.org/yubrf > [2] https://s.apache.org/e804z > > > On Fri, 27 Sep 2019 at 00:04, Stack <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Thanks for starting up this thread Andrew. Lets move the stable pointer > if > > a vote or two that branch-2.2 is basically working for folks . We could > > push a new release -- a 2.2.3 which had bug fixes only -- and move the > > stable pointer here. It helps that hbase-operator-tools w/ a 1.0.0 hbck2 > > was released yesterday. > > > > Thanks, > > S > > > > On Wed, Sep 25, 2019 at 7:55 AM Andrew Purtell <[email protected] > > > > wrote: > > > > > In a recent discussion regarding hbck parity between branches 1 and 2, > > > Stack also proposed moving the stable pointer forward to 2.2. Raising > > this > > > as a separate point of discussion because I think it is time. > > > > > > What do others think? > > > > > > What is the in production experience with 2.2? Can anyone offer > > > testimonial? > > > > > > If more need be done, what is the consensus criteria for moving the > > stable > > > pointer forward? > > > > > > Also, I think we should add another stable pointer, like “stable-1”, to > > > point at 1.4.11 after it is released. To be updated to 1.5.0 after it > is > > > released (I promise a renewed push when back from vacation next week) > and > > > after we confirm it stable under load where I work (at least) and under > > > long term ITBLL stress. I mention this to get it out of the way. The > > state > > > of branch-1 should be mostly orthogonal to this discussion. It’s time > to > > > declare HBase 2 stable and move the pointer forward to acknowledge > this. > > > > > > > > >
