+1 on reducing the number of branches. On Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 2:03 PM, Vincent Poon <[email protected]> wrote:
> big +1 > Commits have been way too burdensome > > On Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 9:08 AM, Josh Elser <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> 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 > >>>> > >>>> > >>> > >> >
