Also +1

Do that after the release? Or before?

On 6/12/18 11:55 AM, James Taylor wrote:
Somewhat orthogonal, but we should move master to a new 4.x-HBase-1.4
branch and make 5.x the master branch.

On Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 8:31 AM Josh Elser <> wrote:


I think HBase 1.2 is soon to be dropped as well (maybe after 1.2.7, but
I might be inventing that). I'm also not so sure about the value behind
a 1.3 release either (I think Andrew's 1.4 branch is much more relevant).

Getting to and HBase 1.4 and HBase 2.x sounds ideal to me (hopefully, we
can avoid a 2.0 and 2.1 schism...), and whatever CDH stuff Pedro wants
to support.

On 6/11/18 9:47 PM, James Taylor wrote:
It feels like we're trying to maintain too many branches. Both HBase 0.98
and 1.1 have been EOLed. To ease the burden on devs, how about we stop
maintaining the 4.x-HBase-0.98 and 4.x-HBase-1.1 branches? An RM can
step up if need be to do a patch release from the 4.14 branches.

Also, how about the 1.2 branch? If we kept the 4.x-cdh5.11 branch, do we
need the 4.x-HBase-1.2 branch?

It'd be good if this was decided prior to the biggish splittable system
catalog work (PHOENIX-3534) and omid transaction integration


Reply via email to