Filed HBASE-26387 张铎(Duo Zhang) <palomino...@gmail.com> 于2021年10月21日周四 上午9:49写道：
> Done. > > Let me file an issue to update our HEADER.html. > > 张铎(Duo Zhang) <palomino...@gmail.com> 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 <vjas...@apache.org> 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) <palomino...@gmail.com> >>> 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 <ndimi...@apache.org> 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) <palomino...@gmail.com >>> > >>> > > 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 <vjas...@apache.org> 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 <vjas...@apache.org >>> > >>> > > 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 <bus...@apache.org >>> > >>> > > 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 >>> > > > > >> >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > >>> > > >>> > >>> >>
