big +1 Commits have been way too burdensome On Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 9:08 AM, Josh Elser <els...@apache.org> wrote:
> 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 <els...@apache.org> wrote: >> >> +1 >>> >>> 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 >>>> >>> always >>> >>>> 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 >>>> >>> (PHOENIX-3623). >>> >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> James >>>> >>>> >>> >>
