if I have to do it all
> alone.
> >> The
> >> > most time-spending should be performance diving in (if there was) and
> >> > upgrade review.
> >> >
> >> > Any thought is appreciated.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > ---
> >> > B
view.
>> >
>> > Any thought is appreciated.
>> >
>> >
>> > ---
>> > Best regards,
>> > R.C
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >> On Tue, Apr 20, 2021 at 12:13 AM Reid Chan
>> wrote:
>> >>
>
ated.
> >
> >
> > ---
> > Best regards,
> > R.C
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >> On Tue, Apr 20, 2021 at 12:13 AM Reid Chan
> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> FYI, a JDK issue when I was making the 1.7.0 release.
> >>
> &
dev.hbase.apache.org%3E
>>
>>
>> ---
>> Best Regards,
>> R.C
>>
>>> On Thu, Apr 1, 2021 at 6:03 AM Andrew Purtell wrote:
>>>
>>> Is it time to consider EOL of branch-1 and all 1.x releases ?
>>>
>>> There doesn't
ps://lists.apache.org/thread.html/r118b08134676d9234362a28898249186fe73a1fb08535d6eec6a91d3%40%3Cdev.hbase.apache.org%3E
>
>
> ---
> Best Regards,
> R.C
>
> On Thu, Apr 1, 2021 at 6:03 AM Andrew Purtell wrote:
>
>> Is it time to consider EOL of branch-1 and all 1.x relea
nch-1 and all 1.x releases ?
>
> There doesn't seem to be much developer interest in branch-1 beyond
> occasional maintenance. This is understandable. Per our compatibility
> guidelines, branch-1 commits must be compatible with Java 7, and the range
> of acceptable versions of third
good reason to keep us running in this “slow mode” by
> default, require operators to opt-in to the perf boost?
>
> Thanks,
> Nick
>
> On Thu, Apr 1, 2021 at 8:22 AM Pankaj Kumar
> > wrote:
> >
> > > +1 on EOL branch-1 and all branch-1.x.
operators to opt-in to the perf boost?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Nick
> >
> > On Thu, Apr 1, 2021 at 8:22 AM Pankaj Kumar
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > +1 on EOL branch-1 and all branch-1.x.
> > > >
> > > > Regards,
> &g
iation for branch-2 releases? Can/should we make the fix the default
> behavior, or is there good reason to keep us running in this “slow mode” by
> default, require operators to opt-in to the perf boost?
>
> Thanks,
> Nick
>
> On Thu, Apr 1, 2021 at 8:22 AM Pankaj Kumar
> >
Thanks,
Nick
On Thu, Apr 1, 2021 at 8:22 AM Pankaj Kumar
> wrote:
>
> > +1 on EOL branch-1 and all branch-1.x.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Pankaj
> >
> > On Thu, Apr 1, 2021 at 3:34 AM Andrew Purtell
> wrote:
> >
> > > Is it time to consider EOL of b
+1 on EOL branch-1 and all branch-1.x.
Per performance regression concern, we had one such issue for meta when
upgrading from 1.2 to 2.3.
It turned out to be default rpc scheduling changed from branch-1 to
branch-2, and it causes performance regression.
On Thu, Apr 1, 2021 at 8:22 AM Pankaj
+1 on EOL branch-1 and all branch-1.x.
Regards,
Pankaj
On Thu, Apr 1, 2021 at 3:34 AM Andrew Purtell wrote:
> Is it time to consider EOL of branch-1 and all 1.x releases ?
>
> There doesn't seem to be much developer interest in branch-1 beyond
> occasional maintenance. This is un
+1 on EOL.
--原始邮件--
发件人:
"user"
ke "2.x.y is slower than 1.x.y".
> > >
> > >
> > >> On Thu, Apr 1, 2021 at 6:03 AM Andrew Purtell
> > wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Is it time to consider EOL of branch-1 and all 1.x releases ?
> > >>
> > >> There doe
an wrote:
> >
> > My only concern is about the performance, once in a while there'll be
> > some emails like "2.x.y is slower than 1.x.y".
> >
> >
> >> On Thu, Apr 1, 2021 at 6:03 AM Andrew Purtell
> wrote:
> >>
> >> Is i
gt; On Thu, Apr 1, 2021 at 6:03 AM Andrew Purtell wrote:
>>
>> Is it time to consider EOL of branch-1 and all 1.x releases ?
>>
>> There doesn't seem to be much developer interest in branch-1 beyond
>> occasional maintenance. This is understandable. Per our compatibilit
My only concern is about the performance, once in a while there'll be
some emails like "2.x.y is slower than 1.x.y".
On Thu, Apr 1, 2021 at 6:03 AM Andrew Purtell wrote:
> Is it time to consider EOL of branch-1 and all 1.x releases ?
>
> There doesn't seem to be much
+1 on EOL branch-1 and all 1.x.
Thanks Andrew for the write up.
Bharath Vissapragada 于2021年4月1日 周四08:07写道：
> Agreed. +1 for EOL'ing.
>
> On Wed, Mar 31, 2021 at 3:08 PM Stack wrote:
>
> > Thanks for the write-up Andrew. +1 on its EOL'ing.
> > S
> >
> > On
Agreed. +1 for EOL'ing.
On Wed, Mar 31, 2021 at 3:08 PM Stack wrote:
> Thanks for the write-up Andrew. +1 on its EOL'ing.
> S
>
> On Wed, Mar 31, 2021 at 3:03 PM Andrew Purtell
> wrote:
>
> > Is it time to consider EOL of branch-1 and all 1.x releases ?
> >
>
Thanks for the write-up Andrew. +1 on its EOL'ing.
S
On Wed, Mar 31, 2021 at 3:03 PM Andrew Purtell wrote:
> Is it time to consider EOL of branch-1 and all 1.x releases ?
>
> There doesn't seem to be much developer interest in branch-1 beyond
> occasional maintenance. This is un
Is it time to consider EOL of branch-1 and all 1.x releases ?
There doesn't seem to be much developer interest in branch-1 beyond
occasional maintenance. This is understandable. Per our compatibility
guidelines, branch-1 commits must be compatible with Java 7, and the range
of acceptable versions
21 matches
Mail list logo
