Re: [DISCUSS] Status of the 0.98 release line
+1 to EOL. Thanks Andrew for all the great RM work! Won't forget the days 0.98 accompanied us in production (smile). Best Regards, Yu On 11 April 2017 at 03:42, Gary Helmling wrote: > +1 to EOL, and thanks to Andrew for all of the RM'ing. > > On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 12:27 PM Ted Yu wrote: > > > +1 > > > > Andrew has done tremendous work. > > > > On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 12:17 PM, Mikhail Antonov > > wrote: > > > > > +1 to EOL 0.98. > > > > > > Thanks Andrew for all the work maintaining it! > > > > > > -Mikhail > > > > > > On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 12:10 PM, Dima Spivak > > > wrote: > > > > > > > +1 > > > > > > > > -Dima > > > > > > > > On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 12:08 PM, Stack wrote: > > > > > > > > > I agree we should EOL 0.98. > > > > > St.Ack > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 11:43 AM, Andrew Purtell < > > apurt...@apache.org> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Please speak up if it is incorrect to interpret the lack of > > responses > > > > as > > > > > > indicating consensus on declaring 0.98 EOL. > > > > > > > > > > > > I believe we should declare 0.98 EOL. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 6:56 AM, Sean Busbey > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Folks! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Back in January our Andrew Purtell stepped down as the release > > > > > > > manager for the 0.98 release line. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On the resultant dev@hbase thread[1] folks seemed largely in > > favor > > > > of > > > > > > > declaring end-of-maintenance for the 0.98 line. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Now that it's been a couple of months, does anyone have > concerns > > > > about > > > > > > > pushing forward on that? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Do folks who listen on user@hbase but not dev@hbase have any > > > > concerns? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As with any end-of-maintenance branch, the PMC would consider > on > > a > > > > > > > case-by-case basis doing a future release of the branch should > a > > > > > > > critical security vulnerability show up. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [1]: https://s.apache.org/DjCi > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -busbey > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > Best regards, > > > > > > > > > > > >- Andy > > > > > > > > > > > > If you are given a choice, you believe you have acted freely. - > > > Raymond > > > > > > Teller (via Peter Watts) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > Thanks, > > > Michael Antonov > > > > > >
Re: [DISCUSS] Status of the 0.98 release line
+1 to EOL, and thanks to Andrew for all of the RM'ing. On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 12:27 PM Ted Yu wrote: > +1 > > Andrew has done tremendous work. > > On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 12:17 PM, Mikhail Antonov > wrote: > > > +1 to EOL 0.98. > > > > Thanks Andrew for all the work maintaining it! > > > > -Mikhail > > > > On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 12:10 PM, Dima Spivak > > wrote: > > > > > +1 > > > > > > -Dima > > > > > > On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 12:08 PM, Stack wrote: > > > > > > > I agree we should EOL 0.98. > > > > St.Ack > > > > > > > > On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 11:43 AM, Andrew Purtell < > apurt...@apache.org> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Please speak up if it is incorrect to interpret the lack of > responses > > > as > > > > > indicating consensus on declaring 0.98 EOL. > > > > > > > > > > I believe we should declare 0.98 EOL. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 6:56 AM, Sean Busbey > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Folks! > > > > > > > > > > > > Back in January our Andrew Purtell stepped down as the release > > > > > > manager for the 0.98 release line. > > > > > > > > > > > > On the resultant dev@hbase thread[1] folks seemed largely in > favor > > > of > > > > > > declaring end-of-maintenance for the 0.98 line. > > > > > > > > > > > > Now that it's been a couple of months, does anyone have concerns > > > about > > > > > > pushing forward on that? > > > > > > > > > > > > Do folks who listen on user@hbase but not dev@hbase have any > > > concerns? > > > > > > > > > > > > As with any end-of-maintenance branch, the PMC would consider on > a > > > > > > case-by-case basis doing a future release of the branch should a > > > > > > critical security vulnerability show up. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [1]: https://s.apache.org/DjCi > > > > > > > > > > > > -busbey > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > Best regards, > > > > > > > > > >- Andy > > > > > > > > > > If you are given a choice, you believe you have acted freely. - > > Raymond > > > > > Teller (via Peter Watts) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Thanks, > > Michael Antonov > > >
Re: [DISCUSS] Status of the 0.98 release line
+1 Andrew has done tremendous work. On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 12:17 PM, Mikhail Antonov wrote: > +1 to EOL 0.98. > > Thanks Andrew for all the work maintaining it! > > -Mikhail > > On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 12:10 PM, Dima Spivak > wrote: > > > +1 > > > > -Dima > > > > On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 12:08 PM, Stack wrote: > > > > > I agree we should EOL 0.98. > > > St.Ack > > > > > > On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 11:43 AM, Andrew Purtell > > > wrote: > > > > > > > Please speak up if it is incorrect to interpret the lack of responses > > as > > > > indicating consensus on declaring 0.98 EOL. > > > > > > > > I believe we should declare 0.98 EOL. > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 6:56 AM, Sean Busbey > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Hi Folks! > > > > > > > > > > Back in January our Andrew Purtell stepped down as the release > > > > > manager for the 0.98 release line. > > > > > > > > > > On the resultant dev@hbase thread[1] folks seemed largely in favor > > of > > > > > declaring end-of-maintenance for the 0.98 line. > > > > > > > > > > Now that it's been a couple of months, does anyone have concerns > > about > > > > > pushing forward on that? > > > > > > > > > > Do folks who listen on user@hbase but not dev@hbase have any > > concerns? > > > > > > > > > > As with any end-of-maintenance branch, the PMC would consider on a > > > > > case-by-case basis doing a future release of the branch should a > > > > > critical security vulnerability show up. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [1]: https://s.apache.org/DjCi > > > > > > > > > > -busbey > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > Best regards, > > > > > > > >- Andy > > > > > > > > If you are given a choice, you believe you have acted freely. - > Raymond > > > > Teller (via Peter Watts) > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > Thanks, > Michael Antonov >
Re: [DISCUSS] Status of the 0.98 release line
+1 to EOL 0.98. Thanks Andrew for all the work maintaining it! -Mikhail On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 12:10 PM, Dima Spivak wrote: > +1 > > -Dima > > On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 12:08 PM, Stack wrote: > > > I agree we should EOL 0.98. > > St.Ack > > > > On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 11:43 AM, Andrew Purtell > > wrote: > > > > > Please speak up if it is incorrect to interpret the lack of responses > as > > > indicating consensus on declaring 0.98 EOL. > > > > > > I believe we should declare 0.98 EOL. > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 6:56 AM, Sean Busbey > wrote: > > > > > > > Hi Folks! > > > > > > > > Back in January our Andrew Purtell stepped down as the release > > > > manager for the 0.98 release line. > > > > > > > > On the resultant dev@hbase thread[1] folks seemed largely in favor > of > > > > declaring end-of-maintenance for the 0.98 line. > > > > > > > > Now that it's been a couple of months, does anyone have concerns > about > > > > pushing forward on that? > > > > > > > > Do folks who listen on user@hbase but not dev@hbase have any > concerns? > > > > > > > > As with any end-of-maintenance branch, the PMC would consider on a > > > > case-by-case basis doing a future release of the branch should a > > > > critical security vulnerability show up. > > > > > > > > > > > > [1]: https://s.apache.org/DjCi > > > > > > > > -busbey > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > Best regards, > > > > > >- Andy > > > > > > If you are given a choice, you believe you have acted freely. - Raymond > > > Teller (via Peter Watts) > > > > > > -- Thanks, Michael Antonov
Re: [DISCUSS] Status of the 0.98 release line
+1 -Dima On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 12:08 PM, Stack wrote: > I agree we should EOL 0.98. > St.Ack > > On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 11:43 AM, Andrew Purtell > wrote: > > > Please speak up if it is incorrect to interpret the lack of responses as > > indicating consensus on declaring 0.98 EOL. > > > > I believe we should declare 0.98 EOL. > > > > > > On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 6:56 AM, Sean Busbey wrote: > > > > > Hi Folks! > > > > > > Back in January our Andrew Purtell stepped down as the release > > > manager for the 0.98 release line. > > > > > > On the resultant dev@hbase thread[1] folks seemed largely in favor of > > > declaring end-of-maintenance for the 0.98 line. > > > > > > Now that it's been a couple of months, does anyone have concerns about > > > pushing forward on that? > > > > > > Do folks who listen on user@hbase but not dev@hbase have any concerns? > > > > > > As with any end-of-maintenance branch, the PMC would consider on a > > > case-by-case basis doing a future release of the branch should a > > > critical security vulnerability show up. > > > > > > > > > [1]: https://s.apache.org/DjCi > > > > > > -busbey > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Best regards, > > > >- Andy > > > > If you are given a choice, you believe you have acted freely. - Raymond > > Teller (via Peter Watts) > > >
Re: [DISCUSS] Status of the 0.98 release line
I agree we should EOL 0.98. St.Ack On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 11:43 AM, Andrew Purtell wrote: > Please speak up if it is incorrect to interpret the lack of responses as > indicating consensus on declaring 0.98 EOL. > > I believe we should declare 0.98 EOL. > > > On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 6:56 AM, Sean Busbey wrote: > > > Hi Folks! > > > > Back in January our Andrew Purtell stepped down as the release > > manager for the 0.98 release line. > > > > On the resultant dev@hbase thread[1] folks seemed largely in favor of > > declaring end-of-maintenance for the 0.98 line. > > > > Now that it's been a couple of months, does anyone have concerns about > > pushing forward on that? > > > > Do folks who listen on user@hbase but not dev@hbase have any concerns? > > > > As with any end-of-maintenance branch, the PMC would consider on a > > case-by-case basis doing a future release of the branch should a > > critical security vulnerability show up. > > > > > > [1]: https://s.apache.org/DjCi > > > > -busbey > > > > > > -- > Best regards, > >- Andy > > If you are given a choice, you believe you have acted freely. - Raymond > Teller (via Peter Watts) >
Re: [DISCUSS] Status of the 0.98 release line
Please speak up if it is incorrect to interpret the lack of responses as indicating consensus on declaring 0.98 EOL. I believe we should declare 0.98 EOL. On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 6:56 AM, Sean Busbey wrote: > Hi Folks! > > Back in January our Andrew Purtell stepped down as the release > manager for the 0.98 release line. > > On the resultant dev@hbase thread[1] folks seemed largely in favor of > declaring end-of-maintenance for the 0.98 line. > > Now that it's been a couple of months, does anyone have concerns about > pushing forward on that? > > Do folks who listen on user@hbase but not dev@hbase have any concerns? > > As with any end-of-maintenance branch, the PMC would consider on a > case-by-case basis doing a future release of the branch should a > critical security vulnerability show up. > > > [1]: https://s.apache.org/DjCi > > -busbey > -- Best regards, - Andy If you are given a choice, you believe you have acted freely. - Raymond Teller (via Peter Watts)
[DISCUSS] Status of the 0.98 release line
Hi Folks! Back in January our Andrew Purtell stepped down as the release manager for the 0.98 release line. On the resultant dev@hbase thread[1] folks seemed largely in favor of declaring end-of-maintenance for the 0.98 line. Now that it's been a couple of months, does anyone have concerns about pushing forward on that? Do folks who listen on user@hbase but not dev@hbase have any concerns? As with any end-of-maintenance branch, the PMC would consider on a case-by-case basis doing a future release of the branch should a critical security vulnerability show up. [1]: https://s.apache.org/DjCi -busbey