So I think in this thread, the only concern is about performance issues, so we decided to make new releases on branch-1.
But at least I think we all agree to EOL other 1.x release lines, especially branch-1.4 right? If no other concerns, let's do a final 1.4.14 release and then mark branch-1.4 as EOL. There are 40 issues under 1.4.14 so I think it is worth having a new release. Thanks. Andrew Purtell <andrew.purt...@gmail.com> 于2021年6月1日周二 上午3:16写道： > It would be good to do the performance work at least, if you are up for > it. There are always going to be consequences for the kind of significant > evolution that 2.x represents over 1.x. > > Regarding performance, a change always has positive and negative > consequences. It is important to understand them both, informed by real > world use cases. My guess is you have real world use cases, Reid. Your > results will be meaningful. > > Synthetic benchmarks are less interesting unless the regression is obvious > and more like a bug than a consequence. Sure they will report positive and > negative changes, but does that actually mean anything? It depends. > Sometimes it will only mean something if we care about supporting the > synthetic benchmark as a first class use case. (Usually we don’t; but > universal cross system bench tools like YCSB are exceptions.) > > > > On May 31, 2021, at 9:25 AM, Reid Chan <reidchan0...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Thanks to Andrew and Sean's help, I managed to release the first > candidate > > of 1.7.0 (at least it is a beginning, and graduated from green hand). > > BTW, The [VOTE] > > < > https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/r0b96b6596fc423e17ff648633e5ea76fd897d9afb8a03ae6e09cdb8f%40%3Cdev.hbase.apache.org%3E > > > > > > The following are my thoughts: > > I'm willing to continue branch-1's life as a RM. > > And before EOL branch-1, I need to announce EOL of branch-1.4. > > While maintaining the branch-1, I also will do some benchmarks between > 1.7+ > > and 2.4+ (the latest). If 2.4+ is better, cool. Otherwise, I'm willing to > > spend some time diving in. > > After the performance issue is done, I need to review the upgrade from > 1.x > > to 2.x. I remember someone wrote it. But HBASE-25902 seems to reveal some > > problems already. > > I will announce EOL of branch-1 if listed above are done. > > > > Probably more than 1 year, by estimation, if I have to do it all alone. > The > > most time-spending should be performance diving in (if there was) and > > upgrade review. > > > > Any thought is appreciated. > > > > > > --- > > Best regards, > > R.C > > > > > > > > > >> On Tue, Apr 20, 2021 at 12:13 AM Reid Chan <reidchan0...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> > >> > >> FYI, a JDK issue when I was making the 1.7.0 release. > >> > >> > >> > https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/r118b08134676d9234362a28898249186fe73a1fb08535d6eec6a91d3%40%3Cdev.hbase.apache.org%3E > >> > >> > >> --- > >> Best Regards, > >> R.C > >> > >>> On Thu, Apr 1, 2021 at 6:03 AM Andrew Purtell <apurt...@apache.org> > wrote: > >>> > >>> Is it time to consider EOL of branch-1 and all 1.x releases ? > >>> > >>> There doesn't seem to be much developer interest in branch-1 beyond > >>> occasional maintenance. This is understandable. Per our compatibility > >>> guidelines, branch-1 commits must be compatible with Java 7, and the > range > >>> of acceptable versions of third party dependencies is also restricted > due > >>> to Java 7 compatibility requirements. Most developers are writing code > >>> with > >>> Java 8+ idioms these days. For that reason and because the branch-1 > code > >>> base is generally aged at this point, all but trivial (or lucky!) > >>> backports > >>> require substantial changes in order to integrate adequately. Let me > also > >>> observe that branch-1 artifacts are not fully compatible with Java 11 > or > >>> later. (The shell is a good example of such issues: The version of > >>> jruby-complete required by branch-1 is not compatible with Java 11 and > >>> upgrading to the version used by branch-2 causes shell commands to > error > >>> out due to Ruby language changes.) > >>> > >>> We can a priori determine there is insufficient motivation for > production > >>> of release artifacts for the PMC to vote upon. Otherwise, someone would > >>> have done it. We had 12 releases from branch-2 derived code in 2019, 13 > >>> releases from branch-2 derived code in 2020, and so far we have had 3 > >>> releases from branch-2 derived code in 2021. In contrast, we had 8 > >>> releases > >>> from branch-1 derived code in 2019, 0 releases from branch-1 in 2020, > and > >>> so far 0 releases from branch-1 in 2021. > >>> > >>> * 2021202020191.x0282.x31312* > >>> > >>> If there is someone interested in continuing branch-1, now is the time > to > >>> commit. However let me be clear that simply expressing an abstract > desire > >>> to see continued branch-1 releases will not be that useful. It will be > >>> noted, but will not have much real world impact. Apache is a > do-ocracy. In > >>> the absence of intrinsic motivation of project participants, which is > what > >>> we seem to have here, you will need to do something: Fix the > compatibility > >>> issues, if any between the last release of 1.x and the current branch-1 > >>> head; fix any failing and flaky unit tests; produce release artifacts; > and > >>> submit those artifacts to the PMC for voting. Or, convince someone with > >>> commit rights and/or PMC membership to undertake these actions on your > >>> behalf. > >>> > >>> Otherwise, I respectfully submit for your consideration, it is time to > >>> declare branch-1 and all 1.x code lines EOL, simply acknowledging what > >>> has > >>> effectively already happened. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> Best regards, > >>> Andrew > >>> > >>> Words like orphans lost among the crosstalk, meaning torn from truth's > >>> decrepit hands > >>> - A23, Crosstalk > >>> > >> >
