Done. Let me file an issue to update our HEADER.html.
张铎(Duo Zhang) <[email protected]> 于2021年10月21日周四 上午8:41写道： > I think we have reached an agreement here to move the stable pointer 2.4.x. > > Since 2.4.7 has been released, let's move the stable pointer to 2.4.7. > > Will do this later today. > > Thanks all for helping! > > Viraj Jasani <[email protected]> 于2021年10月12日周二 下午2:59写道： > >> Sounds good. Created HBASE-26352 >> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-26352>, will get to it after >> completing some additional testing. >> >> On Mon, Oct 11, 2021 at 8:47 PM 张铎(Duo Zhang) <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >> > I was thinking we can add these things to the upgrade section. >> > >> > https://hbase.apache.org/book.html#upgrade2.0.rolling.upgrades >> > >> > Nick Dimiduk <[email protected]> 于2021年10月11日周一 下午10:59写道： >> > >> > > On Mon, Oct 11, 2021 at 2:24 AM 张铎(Duo Zhang) <[email protected]> >> > > wrote: >> > > >> > > > Could you please file an issue to add these to our ref guide? I >> think >> > > these >> > > > are all very important experiences for our end users. >> > > > >> > > >> > > Question: Is the ref guide the place where we want to document what >> > > community testing has been performed on any given release? What would >> > such >> > > a section look like? Who do we imagine will benefit from such >> > information? >> > > How will they find it? How will they volunteer new results? >> > > >> > > Viraj Jasani <[email protected]> 于2021年10月11日周一 下午3:46写道： >> > > > >> > > > > Moreover, I have also tested rollback from 2.4 to 1.6 and after >> > taking >> > > > care >> > > > > of some rsgroup ordering issues as part of the downgrade, we have >> > seen >> > > > > smooth downgrade as well (with the only exception that last RS >> that >> > > stays >> > > > > on 2.4 needs to be shutdown non-gracefully or killed, because of >> > > > > HBASE-17931). >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > On Mon, 11 Oct 2021 at 1:10 PM, Viraj Jasani <[email protected]> >> > > wrote: >> > > > > >> > > > > > I have done some chaos testing as well as ingestion testing 3-4 >> > times >> > > > on >> > > > > > the recent 2.4 versions, each spanning the duration of around >> 8-10 >> > > hr. >> > > > > And >> > > > > > also tested rolling upgrade from 1.6 to 2.4 a couple of times >> after >> > > > > > applying the recent fixes on adding missing CFs in meta table as >> > part >> > > > of >> > > > > > the upgrade. (Upgrade requires upgrading all RS first before >> > masters) >> > > > > > >> > > > > > Things seem to be running well so far, no significant concerns >> have >> > > > been >> > > > > > identified with default configs so far. >> > > > > > >> > > > > > Andrew and I will keep testing this release line on different >> > > > > > infrastructure with different tooling, but for now, I have >> > sufficient >> > > > > test >> > > > > > data to provide my +1 for moving the stable pointers to 2.4. And >> > > thank >> > > > > you >> > > > > > for starting this thread, Sean! >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > On Mon, 11 Oct 2021 at 1:46 AM, Sean Busbey <[email protected]> >> > > wrote: >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> Hi folks! >> > > > > >> >> > > > > >> I'd like us to move the stable pointer from 2.3.z releases to >> > 2.4.6+ >> > > > > >> releases. >> > > > > >> >> > > > > >> The last time we talked about doing so[1] there was a desire to >> > get >> > > > > >> some documentation together on what we as a community expect >> from >> > > the >> > > > > >> "stable" release line. We have an issue tracking those >> needs[2], >> > but >> > > > > >> AFAICT we haven't had sufficient community interest to get >> > criteria >> > > > > >> together over the last 6 months. >> > > > > >> >> > > > > >> The 2.3 release line started in July 2020 and there is active >> > > > > >> discussion about declaring it EOL[3]. 2.4 releases have been >> going >> > > > > >> since Dec 2020 and there is attestation that 2.4 has been as or >> > more >> > > > > >> stable than 2.3 in a testing environment[4]. >> > > > > >> >> > > > > >> Personally, I view the "stable" pointer as simply a way to say >> "if >> > > you >> > > > > >> are new to our community we'd like you to use this release." I >> > > > > >> personally think 2.4.z currently meets that standard and we >> need >> > not >> > > > > >> block updating on something more rigorous. >> > > > > >> >> > > > > >> What do folks think? >> > > > > >> >> > > > > >> -busbey >> > > > > >> >> > > > > >> [1]: >> > > > > >> "[DISCUSS] Updating the 'stable' pointer to 2.4.2" : >> > > > > >> https://s.apache.org/6cz3t >> > > > > >> >> > > > > >> [2]: >> > > > > >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-25690 >> > > > > >> >> > > > > >> [3]: >> > > > > >> "[DISCUSS] EOL 2.3" : https://s.apache.org/pgkge >> > > > > >> >> > > > > >> [4]: >> > > > > >> Message on thread "[DISCUSS] EOL 2.3" >> > > > > >> https://s.apache.org/ks7wk >> > > > > >> >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > >> >
