t; > > > >>>> On Mon, Dec 2, 2019 at 7:33 AM Andrew Purtell <
> > > > > andrew.purt...@gmail.com>
> > > > > >>>> wrote:
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>>> I think there is a consens
inter,
> based
> > on
> > > > >>>>> earlier discussion. What I would suggest is a separate thread
> to
> > > > >>> propose
> > > > >>>>> it, and if nobody objects, do it.
> > > > >>&g
com>
> > > >>>> wrote:
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> +1.
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> And I think it is time to move the stable pointer to 2.2.x? I
> know
> > >
nk it is time to move the stable pointer to 2.2.x? I know
> > >>> that
> > >>>>>> 2.2.x still has some bugs, especially on the procedure store, but
> > >>>> anyway,
> > >>>>>> we have HBCK2 to fix them.
> > >>&
to move the stable pointer to 2.2.x? I know
> >>> that
> >>>>>> 2.2.x still has some bugs, especially on the procedure store, but
> >>>> anyway,
> >>>>>> we have HBCK2 to fix them.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
>>>> we have HBCK2 to fix them.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And for the current stable release line, 1.4.x, the assignment
>>> manager
>>>>> also
>>>>>> has bugs, as it is the reason why we introduced AMv2.
>>>>>>
gt; > > > >
> > > > > So I do not think bug free is the 'must have' for a stable release
> > > line.
> > > > >
> > > > > Jan Hentschel 于2019年12月2日周一
> > > 下午4:57写道：
> > > > >
> > > > >> +1
ced AMv2.
> > > >
> > > > So I do not think bug free is the 'must have' for a stable release
> > line.
> > > >
> > > > Jan Hentschel 于2019年12月2日周一
> > 下午4:57写道：
> > > >
> > > >> +1
> >
; has bugs, as it is the reason why we introduced AMv2.
> > >
> > > So I do not think bug free is the 'must have' for a stable release
> line.
> > >
> > > Jan Hentschel 于2019年12月2日周一
> 下午4:57写道：
> > >
> > >> +1
> > >>
> > >>
2日周一 下午4:57写道：
> >
> >> +1
> >>
> >> From: Sakthi
> >> Reply-To: "dev@hbase.apache.org"
> >> Date: Monday, December 2, 2019 at 3:32 AM
> >> To: "dev@hbase.apache.org"
> >> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS]
gt;
> So I do not think bug free is the 'must have' for a stable release line.
>
> Jan Hentschel 于2019年12月2日周一 下午4:57写道：
>
>> +1
>>
>> From: Sakthi
>> Reply-To: "dev@hbase.apache.org"
>> Date: Monday, December 2, 2019 at 3:32 AM
>> To: &quo
+1 for EOM
On Mon, Dec 2, 2019, 10:57 Jan Hentschel
wrote:
> +1
>
> From: Sakthi
> Reply-To: "dev@hbase.apache.org"
> Date: Monday, December 2, 2019 at 3:32 AM
> To: "dev@hbase.apache.org"
> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] EOM branch-1.3
>
> +1
&g
introduced AMv2.
So I do not think bug free is the 'must have' for a stable release line.
Jan Hentschel 于2019年12月2日周一 下午4:57写道：
> +1
>
> From: Sakthi
> Reply-To: "dev@hbase.apache.org"
> Date: Monday, December 2, 2019 at 3:32 AM
> To: "dev@hbase.apache.org"
&
+1
From: Sakthi
Reply-To: "dev@hbase.apache.org"
Date: Monday, December 2, 2019 at 3:32 AM
To: "dev@hbase.apache.org"
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] EOM branch-1.3
+1
On Sun, Dec 1, 2019 at 6:28 PM Andrew Purtell
mailto:andrew.purt...@gmail.com>>
wrote:
+1 for
+1
On Sun, Dec 1, 2019 at 6:28 PM Andrew Purtell
wrote:
> +1 for EOL of 1.3.
>
> Onward to 1.6!
>
>
> > On Dec 1, 2019, at 5:38 PM, Sean Busbey wrote:
> >
> > Hi folks!
> >
> > It's been about a month since the last 1.3.z release came out. We've
> > been talking about EOM for branch-1.3 for
+1 for EOL of 1.3.
Onward to 1.6!
> On Dec 1, 2019, at 5:38 PM, Sean Busbey wrote:
>
> Hi folks!
>
> It's been about a month since the last 1.3.z release came out. We've
> been talking about EOM for branch-1.3 for about a year. Most recently,
> we had a growing consensus[1] to EOM after
16 matches
Mail list logo
