Re: [DISCUSS] stop minor releases for 0.98 and 1.1
This was just a discuss thread. How about starting a vote thread to make it official? On Mon, Jul 9, 2018 at 1:52 PM, Vincent Poon wrote: > With 5 approve votes here, I think we can officially drop 4.x-HBase-0.98 > and 4.x-HBase-1.1 > > > On Wed, Jun 27, 2018 at 5:24 PM, Pedro Boado > wrote: > > > I'm OK reducing to one single CDH-5.14 branch and dropping 5.11,5.12 and > > 5.13 support for next minor 4.15. > > > > Same for 0.98 and 1.1 . > > > > 1.2 is not really needed for maintaining a cdh branch but could still be > > relevant - isn't it still the most popular version of HBase in terms of > > adoption? - . > > > > Anyway I agree there are too many parallel branches. > > > > On Wed, 13 Jun 2018 at 03:35, Thomas D'Silva > > wrote: > > > > > +1 on reducing the number of branches. > > > > > > On Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 2:03 PM, Vincent Poon < > vincent.poon...@gmail.com > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > big +1 > > > > Commits have been way too burdensome > > > > > > > > On Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 9:08 AM, Josh Elser > 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 > > 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 > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
Re: [DISCUSS] stop minor releases for 0.98 and 1.1
With 5 approve votes here, I think we can officially drop 4.x-HBase-0.98 and 4.x-HBase-1.1 On Wed, Jun 27, 2018 at 5:24 PM, Pedro Boado wrote: > I'm OK reducing to one single CDH-5.14 branch and dropping 5.11,5.12 and > 5.13 support for next minor 4.15. > > Same for 0.98 and 1.1 . > > 1.2 is not really needed for maintaining a cdh branch but could still be > relevant - isn't it still the most popular version of HBase in terms of > adoption? - . > > Anyway I agree there are too many parallel branches. > > On Wed, 13 Jun 2018 at 03:35, Thomas D'Silva > wrote: > > > +1 on reducing the number of branches. > > > > On Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 2:03 PM, Vincent Poon > > > wrote: > > > > > big +1 > > > Commits have been way too burdensome > > > > > > On Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 9:08 AM, Josh Elser 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 > 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 > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > > > > > >
Re: [DISCUSS] stop minor releases for 0.98 and 1.1
I'm OK reducing to one single CDH-5.14 branch and dropping 5.11,5.12 and 5.13 support for next minor 4.15. Same for 0.98 and 1.1 . 1.2 is not really needed for maintaining a cdh branch but could still be relevant - isn't it still the most popular version of HBase in terms of adoption? - . Anyway I agree there are too many parallel branches. On Wed, 13 Jun 2018 at 03:35, Thomas D'Silva wrote: > +1 on reducing the number of branches. > > On Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 2:03 PM, Vincent Poon > wrote: > > > big +1 > > Commits have been way too burdensome > > > > On Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 9:08 AM, Josh Elser 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 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 > > > > > > >>> > > >> > > >
Re: [DISCUSS] stop minor releases for 0.98 and 1.1
+1 on reducing the number of branches. On Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 2:03 PM, Vincent Poon wrote: > big +1 > Commits have been way too burdensome > > On Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 9:08 AM, Josh Elser 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 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 > > > >>> > >> >
Re: [DISCUSS] stop minor releases for 0.98 and 1.1
big +1 Commits have been way too burdensome On Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 9:08 AM, Josh Elser 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 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 >>> >>
Re: [DISCUSS] stop minor releases for 0.98 and 1.1
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: +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
Re: [DISCUSS] stop minor releases for 0.98 and 1.1
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: > +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 > > >
Re: [DISCUSS] stop minor releases for 0.98 and 1.1
+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
[DISCUSS] stop minor releases for 0.98 and 1.1
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
