Re: [DISCUSS] our stable release pointer and EOM

That makes sense Sean. Go for it. S On Sat, Aug 11, 2018, 5:05 PM Sean Busbey wrote: > Mind if I do the announcement? Would like to include some expectations for > those still on the current stable line. > > On Sat, Aug 11, 2018, 11:21 Stack wrote: > > > Bumping this thread. Seems like there is

Re: [DISCUSS] our stable release pointer and EOM

Mind if I do the announcement? Would like to include some expectations for those still on the current stable line. On Sat, Aug 11, 2018, 11:21 Stack wrote: > Bumping this thread. Seems like there is no objection upping the stable > pointer to 1.4. I'll move it on Tuesday unless push back (and a

Re: [DISCUSS] our stable release pointer and EOM

Bumping this thread. Seems like there is no objection upping the stable pointer to 1.4. I'll move it on Tuesday unless push back (and announce on user@). Thanks, S On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 9:33 AM Andrew Purtell wrote: > Even when claiming a code line stable we can call out specific features a

Re: [DISCUSS] our stable release pointer and EOM

Even when claiming a code line stable we can call out specific features as experimental, and have done so in the past. Some examples: - encryption - HFileV3 - ZK-less assignment My thinking is in 1.4 RSGroups is the experimental feature, and in 1.5 it will be storage class aware file placement.

Re: [DISCUSS] our stable release pointer and EOM

> I think Francis Liu might be wanting to make more releases of 1.3. If so, and for as long as he wants to do it, we shouldn't mark it EOM obviously. Thanks! Yes, I'd like to continue cutting releases for 1.3 as long as we are on it which may be a while. > As for moving the stable pointer to 1.4,

Re: [DISCUSS] our stable release pointer and EOM

+1 on moving the stable pointer, but before that, I'd suggest some notification in our @user mailing list. According to our 1.x usage survey Andrew took last month, we have 47% usage on 1.2 and 22% on 1.3, JFYI. Best Regards, Yu On 10 March 2018 at 06:10, Andrew Purtel

Re: [DISCUSS] our stable release pointer and EOM

I think Francis Liu might be wanting to make more releases of 1.3. If so, and for as long as he wants to do it, we shouldn't mark it EOM obviously. As for moving the stable pointer to 1.4, I think we have consensus to do it, and if the RM for 1.2 wants to move on and declare it EOM in about six mo

Re: [DISCUSS] our stable release pointer and EOM

+1 On Fri, Mar 9, 2018 at 10:44 AM, rahul gidwani wrote: > +1 > > On Fri, Mar 9, 2018 at 10:38 AM, Stack wrote: > > > On Thu, Mar 8, 2018 at 6:40 PM, Sean Busbey wrote: > > > > > Hi folks! > > > > > > I've been working to get the test suite back to green on branch-1.2; > > > we have a lot of b

Re: [DISCUSS] our stable release pointer and EOM

+1 On Fri, Mar 9, 2018 at 10:38 AM, Stack wrote: > On Thu, Mar 8, 2018 at 6:40 PM, Sean Busbey wrote: > > > Hi folks! > > > > I've been working to get the test suite back to green on branch-1.2; > > we have a lot of branches to track backport for and a non-trivial > > amount of tech debt across

Re: [DISCUSS] our stable release pointer and EOM

On Thu, Mar 8, 2018 at 6:40 PM, Sean Busbey wrote: > Hi folks! > > I've been working to get the test suite back to green on branch-1.2; > we have a lot of branches to track backport for and a non-trivial > amount of tech debt across all of them from the nightlies being > offline. > > After the st

Re: [DISCUSS] our stable release pointer and EOM

Sounds like a plan to me. On 3/8/18 9:40 PM, Sean Busbey wrote: Hi folks! I've been working to get the test suite back to green on branch-1.2; we have a lot of branches to track backport for and a non-trivial amount of tech debt across all of them from the nightlies being offline. After the st

[DISCUSS] our stable release pointer and EOM

Hi folks! I've been working to get the test suite back to green on branch-1.2; we have a lot of branches to track backport for and a non-trivial amount of tech debt across all of them from the nightlies being offline. After the stable pointer moves forward from branch-1.2 I'll keep doing RM duty