Re: [DISCUSS] EOM branch-1.3
t; > > > > > > 2.0 and 1.3 were never a release line with the "stable" marker on > > it. > > > > > > 1.2 was the stable release line prior to 1.4. > > > > > > > > > > > >> On Mon, Dec 2, 2019 at 1:58 PM Misty Linville > > > > > wrote: > > > > > >> > > > > > >> Whether any non-dev users are unable to move off 1.3, I suppose. > > > > > >> > > > > > >>> On Mon, Dec 2, 2019 at 11:04 AM Sean Busbey > > > > > wrote: > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> On what, specifically? > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>>> On Mon, Dec 2, 2019, 11:24 Misty Linville > > > wrote: > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>>> Should the user list be allowed to weigh in? > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> On Mon, Dec 2, 2019 at 7:33 AM Andrew Purtell < > > > > > andrew.purt...@gmail.com> > > > > > >>>> wrote: > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>>> I think there is a consensus on moving the stable pointer, > > based > > > on > > > > > >>>>> earlier discussion. What I would suggest is a separate thread > > to > > > > > >>> propose > > > > > >>>>> it, and if nobody objects, do it. > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> On Dec 2, 2019, at 5:14 AM, 张铎(Duo Zhang) < > > > palomino...@gmail.com> > > > > > >>>> wrote: > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> +1. > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> And I think 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. > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> 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. > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> 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" > > > > > >>>>>>> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] EOM branch-1.3 > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>> +1 > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>> On Sun, Dec 1, 2019 at 6:28 PM Andrew Purtell < > > > > > >>>> andrew.purt...@gmail.com > > > > > >>>>>>> <mailto:andrew.purt...@gmail.com>> > > > > > >>>>>>> wrote: > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>> +1 for EOL of 1.3. > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>> Onward to 1.6! > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>> On Dec 1, 2019, at 5:38 PM, Sean Busbey < > bus...@apache.org > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> bus...@a
Re: [DISCUSS] EOM branch-1.3
t; >>> > > > > >>>> Should the user list be allowed to weigh in? > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> On Mon, Dec 2, 2019 at 7:33 AM Andrew Purtell < > > > > andrew.purt...@gmail.com> > > > > >>>> wrote: > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>>> I think there is a consensus on moving the stable pointer, > based > > on > > > > >>>>> earlier discussion. What I would suggest is a separate thread > to > > > > >>> propose > > > > >>>>> it, and if nobody objects, do it. > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>>> On Dec 2, 2019, at 5:14 AM, 张铎(Duo Zhang) < > > palomino...@gmail.com> > > > > >>>> wrote: > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> +1. > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> And I think 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. > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> 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. > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> 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" > > > > >>>>>>> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] EOM branch-1.3 > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>> +1 > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>> On Sun, Dec 1, 2019 at 6:28 PM Andrew Purtell < > > > > >>>> andrew.purt...@gmail.com > > > > >>>>>>> <mailto:andrew.purt...@gmail.com>> > > > > >>>>>>> wrote: > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>> +1 for EOL of 1.3. > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>> Onward to 1.6! > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>> On Dec 1, 2019, at 5:38 PM, Sean Busbey > > > > > > >>>>>>> bus...@apache.org>> 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 getting the 1.3.6 > > > > >>> release > > > > >>>>>>>> out with the fixes for Jackson in HBASE-22728 out. > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>> Looking at the things that have since landed in branch-1.3 > and > > > > >>>> nothing > > > > >>>>>>>> looks critical (these are all Major or Minor)[2]: > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>> - HBASE-23149 hbase shouldPerformMajorCompaction logic is > not > > > > >>> correct > > > > >>>>>>>> - HBASE-23185 High cpu usage because getTable()#put() gets > > > config > > > > >>>>>>>> value every time > > > > >>>>>>>> - HBASE-23261 Region stuck in transition while splitting > > > > >>>>>>>> - HBASE-18439 Subclasses of o.a.h.h.chaos.actions.Action all > > use > > > > >>> the > > > > >>>>>>>> same logger > > > > >>>>>>>> - HBASE-23207 Log a region open journal > > > > >>>>>>>> - HBASE-23250 Log message about CleanerChore delegate > > > > >>> initialization > > > > >>>>>>>> should be at INFO > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>> Someone on 1.3.6 can get all these same things fixed by > > > upgrading > > > > >>> to > > > > >>>>>>>> our current stable release. > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>> Releases on 1.3.z started in 2017. The branch has only > > averaged > > > ~2 > > > > >>>>>>>> maintenance releases a year; I think reflecting a lack of > > > > community > > > > >>>>>>>> interest in maintaining the branch. For comparison 1.4 > started > > > > >>> about > > > > >>>> a > > > > >>>>>>>> year later and has already had twice as many maintenance > > > releases. > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>> - 1.3.0: 2017-01-16 > > > > >>>>>>>> - 1.3.1: 2017-04-21 > > > > >>>>>>>> - 1.3.2: 2018-03-07 > > > > >>>>>>>> - 1.3.2.1: 2018-06-13 > > > > >>>>>>>> - 1.3.3: 2018-12-21 > > > > >>>>>>>> - 1.3.5: 2019-06-10 > > > > >>>>>>>> - 1.3.6: 2019-10-20 > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>> Any objections to shutting branch-1.3 down? If folks show up > > > down > > > > >>> the > > > > >>>>>>>> road and want to do the work of maintaining it for some > > reason, > > > we > > > > >>>> can > > > > >>>>>>>> always spin it up again. > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>> [1]: > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>> There's more background if you search farther back, but most > > > > >>>> recently: > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>> * "Considering immediate EOL of branch-1.3 and branch-1.4" > > > > >>>>>>>> https://s.apache.org/f32d0 > > > > >>>>>>>> * https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-22728 > > > > >>>>>>>> * https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-22835 > > > > >>>>>>>> * ANNOUNCE for 1.3.6 included a warning > > > > >>>>>>>> "This is ought to be the last release in the 1.3 line unless > > > > >>>> something > > > > >>>>>>>> critical comes up within in the next month or so." > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>> [2]: > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>> > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/projects/HBASE/versions/12346250 > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>> > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > Best regards, > Andrew > > Words like orphans lost among the crosstalk, meaning torn from truth's > decrepit hands >- A23, Crosstalk >
Re: [DISCUSS] EOM branch-1.3
Hey Francis, What is preventing an upgrade to 1.4? Are there specific concerns remaining? It's been out there for a long time now, and bug fixed through 12 releases. Feel free to contact me offlist if you prefer, no problem. Committers are voting to EOM 1.3 with their git clients already. It is spotty if changes make it that far back even when they should. See extra work the RM had to do for the last 1.3 release to compare history and port back stuff. Nothing prevents you or someone else from continuing to make 1.3 releases but the writing is on the wall here. On Thu, Dec 5, 2019 at 6:52 PM Francis Christopher Liu wrote: > Hi Guys, > > We are still on 1.3 so it would be in our interest if I can continue to > rollout 1.3.z releases. Having said that it is the oldest release branch > and I understand the effort it takes to maintain another branch hence I > didn't push for it unless there are other reasons than our own for keeping > it going. If it works for you guys I can send an email to the user list to > see if that criteria is met? > > Also I was wondering if retired does that prevent us from rolling out > releases with critical/needed fixes? > > Thanks, > Francis > > > > On Tue, Dec 3, 2019 at 3:27 AM Sean Busbey wrote: > > > If it would change anyone's willingness to maintain the branch, then I > > encourage them to go ask about the need on user@hbase. > > > > AFAIK in the year since we started talking about shutting down branch-1.3 > > no committer or PMC has expressed that their interest would change if > > someone on user@hbase felt stuck on 1.3.z. > > > > Also worth noting that in the month since the 1.3.6 announcement went out > > noone has showed up to say they can't move off of the release line. > > > > > > On Mon, Dec 2, 2019, 22:53 Andrew Purtell > > wrote: > > > > > And if a non dev says they won’t move off 1.3? Will it change any > > > committer or PMC minds on actually continuing to do 1.3 releases? If > not > > I > > > think we have to call it for lack of interest and bandwidth. > > > > > > 1.4 is a functional superset of 1.3 and the current stable line anyway. > > > Seems little reason not to upgrade save inertia or risk aversion. > > > > > > > > > > On Dec 2, 2019, at 5:43 PM, Sean Busbey wrote: > > > > > > > > Anyone who wants branch-1.3 to keep having releases has to be > willing > > > > to volunteer to maintain it. If the note in the 1.3.6 release wasn't > > > > sufficient motivation to get them to show up on dev@hbase to do so, > I > > > > could put a more explicit mention of it in the EOM message. We'd need > > > > to come up with some phrasing that didn't leave the status of the > > > > release line ambiguous though. > > > > > > > > For reference, these are the last two EOM announcements we did: > > > > > > > > * 2.0.z in Sep 2019: https://s.apache.org/slgsa > > > > * 1.2.z in Jun 2019: https://s.apache.org/g8lnu > > > > > > > > 2.0 and 1.3 were never a release line with the "stable" marker on it. > > > > 1.2 was the stable release line prior to 1.4. > > > > > > > >> On Mon, Dec 2, 2019 at 1:58 PM Misty Linville > > wrote: > > > >> > > > >> Whether any non-dev users are unable to move off 1.3, I suppose. > > > >> > > > >>> On Mon, Dec 2, 2019 at 11:04 AM Sean Busbey > > wrote: > > > >>> > > > >>> On what, specifically? > > > >>> > > > >>>> On Mon, Dec 2, 2019, 11:24 Misty Linville > wrote: > > > >>> > > > >>>> Should the user list be allowed to weigh in? > > > >>>> > > > >>>> On Mon, Dec 2, 2019 at 7:33 AM Andrew Purtell < > > > andrew.purt...@gmail.com> > > > >>>> wrote: > > > >>>> > > > >>>>> I think there is a consensus on moving the stable pointer, based > on > > > >>>>> earlier discussion. What I would suggest is a separate thread to > > > >>> propose > > > >>>>> it, and if nobody objects, do it. > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>>> On Dec 2, 2019, at 5:14 AM, 张铎(Duo Zhang) < > palomino...@gmail.com> > > > >>>> wrote: > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> +1. > > > >>>>
Re: [DISCUSS] EOM branch-1.3
Hi Guys, We are still on 1.3 so it would be in our interest if I can continue to rollout 1.3.z releases. Having said that it is the oldest release branch and I understand the effort it takes to maintain another branch hence I didn't push for it unless there are other reasons than our own for keeping it going. If it works for you guys I can send an email to the user list to see if that criteria is met? Also I was wondering if retired does that prevent us from rolling out releases with critical/needed fixes? Thanks, Francis On Tue, Dec 3, 2019 at 3:27 AM Sean Busbey wrote: > If it would change anyone's willingness to maintain the branch, then I > encourage them to go ask about the need on user@hbase. > > AFAIK in the year since we started talking about shutting down branch-1.3 > no committer or PMC has expressed that their interest would change if > someone on user@hbase felt stuck on 1.3.z. > > Also worth noting that in the month since the 1.3.6 announcement went out > noone has showed up to say they can't move off of the release line. > > > On Mon, Dec 2, 2019, 22:53 Andrew Purtell > wrote: > > > And if a non dev says they won’t move off 1.3? Will it change any > > committer or PMC minds on actually continuing to do 1.3 releases? If not > I > > think we have to call it for lack of interest and bandwidth. > > > > 1.4 is a functional superset of 1.3 and the current stable line anyway. > > Seems little reason not to upgrade save inertia or risk aversion. > > > > > > > On Dec 2, 2019, at 5:43 PM, Sean Busbey wrote: > > > > > > Anyone who wants branch-1.3 to keep having releases has to be willing > > > to volunteer to maintain it. If the note in the 1.3.6 release wasn't > > > sufficient motivation to get them to show up on dev@hbase to do so, I > > > could put a more explicit mention of it in the EOM message. We'd need > > > to come up with some phrasing that didn't leave the status of the > > > release line ambiguous though. > > > > > > For reference, these are the last two EOM announcements we did: > > > > > > * 2.0.z in Sep 2019: https://s.apache.org/slgsa > > > * 1.2.z in Jun 2019: https://s.apache.org/g8lnu > > > > > > 2.0 and 1.3 were never a release line with the "stable" marker on it. > > > 1.2 was the stable release line prior to 1.4. > > > > > >> On Mon, Dec 2, 2019 at 1:58 PM Misty Linville > wrote: > > >> > > >> Whether any non-dev users are unable to move off 1.3, I suppose. > > >> > > >>> On Mon, Dec 2, 2019 at 11:04 AM Sean Busbey > wrote: > > >>> > > >>> On what, specifically? > > >>> > > >>>> On Mon, Dec 2, 2019, 11:24 Misty Linville wrote: > > >>> > > >>>> Should the user list be allowed to weigh in? > > >>>> > > >>>> On Mon, Dec 2, 2019 at 7:33 AM Andrew Purtell < > > andrew.purt...@gmail.com> > > >>>> wrote: > > >>>> > > >>>>> I think there is a consensus on moving the stable pointer, based on > > >>>>> earlier discussion. What I would suggest is a separate thread to > > >>> propose > > >>>>> it, and if nobody objects, do it. > > >>>>> > > >>>>>> On Dec 2, 2019, at 5:14 AM, 张铎(Duo Zhang) > > >>>> wrote: > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> +1. > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> And I think 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. > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> 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. > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> 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 > > >>&
Re: [DISCUSS] EOM branch-1.3
If it would change anyone's willingness to maintain the branch, then I encourage them to go ask about the need on user@hbase. AFAIK in the year since we started talking about shutting down branch-1.3 no committer or PMC has expressed that their interest would change if someone on user@hbase felt stuck on 1.3.z. Also worth noting that in the month since the 1.3.6 announcement went out noone has showed up to say they can't move off of the release line. On Mon, Dec 2, 2019, 22:53 Andrew Purtell wrote: > And if a non dev says they won’t move off 1.3? Will it change any > committer or PMC minds on actually continuing to do 1.3 releases? If not I > think we have to call it for lack of interest and bandwidth. > > 1.4 is a functional superset of 1.3 and the current stable line anyway. > Seems little reason not to upgrade save inertia or risk aversion. > > > > On Dec 2, 2019, at 5:43 PM, Sean Busbey wrote: > > > > Anyone who wants branch-1.3 to keep having releases has to be willing > > to volunteer to maintain it. If the note in the 1.3.6 release wasn't > > sufficient motivation to get them to show up on dev@hbase to do so, I > > could put a more explicit mention of it in the EOM message. We'd need > > to come up with some phrasing that didn't leave the status of the > > release line ambiguous though. > > > > For reference, these are the last two EOM announcements we did: > > > > * 2.0.z in Sep 2019: https://s.apache.org/slgsa > > * 1.2.z in Jun 2019: https://s.apache.org/g8lnu > > > > 2.0 and 1.3 were never a release line with the "stable" marker on it. > > 1.2 was the stable release line prior to 1.4. > > > >> On Mon, Dec 2, 2019 at 1:58 PM Misty Linville wrote: > >> > >> Whether any non-dev users are unable to move off 1.3, I suppose. > >> > >>> On Mon, Dec 2, 2019 at 11:04 AM Sean Busbey wrote: > >>> > >>> On what, specifically? > >>> > >>>> On Mon, Dec 2, 2019, 11:24 Misty Linville wrote: > >>> > >>>> Should the user list be allowed to weigh in? > >>>> > >>>> On Mon, Dec 2, 2019 at 7:33 AM Andrew Purtell < > andrew.purt...@gmail.com> > >>>> wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> I think there is a consensus on moving the stable pointer, based on > >>>>> earlier discussion. What I would suggest is a separate thread to > >>> propose > >>>>> it, and if nobody objects, do it. > >>>>> > >>>>>> On Dec 2, 2019, at 5:14 AM, 张铎(Duo Zhang) > >>>> wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> +1. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> And I think 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. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> 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. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> 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" > >>>>>>> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] EOM branch-1.3 > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> +1 > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> On Sun, Dec 1, 2019 at 6:28 PM Andrew Purtell < > >>>> andrew.purt...@gmail.com > >>>>>>> <mailto:andrew.purt...@gmail.com>> > >>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> +1 for EOL of 1.3. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Onward to 1.6! > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> On Dec 1, 2019, at 5:38 PM, Sean Busbey >>>>>>> bus...@apache.org>> wrote: >
Re: [DISCUSS] EOM branch-1.3
And if a non dev says they won’t move off 1.3? Will it change any committer or PMC minds on actually continuing to do 1.3 releases? If not I think we have to call it for lack of interest and bandwidth. 1.4 is a functional superset of 1.3 and the current stable line anyway. Seems little reason not to upgrade save inertia or risk aversion. > On Dec 2, 2019, at 5:43 PM, Sean Busbey wrote: > > Anyone who wants branch-1.3 to keep having releases has to be willing > to volunteer to maintain it. If the note in the 1.3.6 release wasn't > sufficient motivation to get them to show up on dev@hbase to do so, I > could put a more explicit mention of it in the EOM message. We'd need > to come up with some phrasing that didn't leave the status of the > release line ambiguous though. > > For reference, these are the last two EOM announcements we did: > > * 2.0.z in Sep 2019: https://s.apache.org/slgsa > * 1.2.z in Jun 2019: https://s.apache.org/g8lnu > > 2.0 and 1.3 were never a release line with the "stable" marker on it. > 1.2 was the stable release line prior to 1.4. > >> On Mon, Dec 2, 2019 at 1:58 PM Misty Linville wrote: >> >> Whether any non-dev users are unable to move off 1.3, I suppose. >> >>> On Mon, Dec 2, 2019 at 11:04 AM Sean Busbey wrote: >>> >>> On what, specifically? >>> >>>> On Mon, Dec 2, 2019, 11:24 Misty Linville wrote: >>> >>>> Should the user list be allowed to weigh in? >>>> >>>> On Mon, Dec 2, 2019 at 7:33 AM Andrew Purtell >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> I think there is a consensus on moving the stable pointer, based on >>>>> earlier discussion. What I would suggest is a separate thread to >>> propose >>>>> it, and if nobody objects, do it. >>>>> >>>>>> On Dec 2, 2019, at 5:14 AM, 张铎(Duo Zhang) >>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> +1. >>>>>> >>>>>> And I think 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. >>>>>> >>>>>> 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. >>>>>> >>>>>> 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" >>>>>>> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] EOM branch-1.3 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> +1 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Sun, Dec 1, 2019 at 6:28 PM Andrew Purtell < >>>> andrew.purt...@gmail.com >>>>>>> <mailto:andrew.purt...@gmail.com>> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> +1 for EOL of 1.3. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Onward to 1.6! >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Dec 1, 2019, at 5:38 PM, Sean Busbey >>>>>> bus...@apache.org>> 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 getting the 1.3.6 >>> release >>>>>>>> out with the fixes for Jackson in HBASE-22728 out. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Looking at the things that have since landed in branch-1.3 and >>>> nothing >>>>>>>> looks critical (these are all Major or Minor)[2]: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> - HBASE-23149 hbase shouldPerformMajorCompaction logic is not >>> correct >>>>>>>> - H
Re: [DISCUSS] EOM branch-1.3
Anyone who wants branch-1.3 to keep having releases has to be willing to volunteer to maintain it. If the note in the 1.3.6 release wasn't sufficient motivation to get them to show up on dev@hbase to do so, I could put a more explicit mention of it in the EOM message. We'd need to come up with some phrasing that didn't leave the status of the release line ambiguous though. For reference, these are the last two EOM announcements we did: * 2.0.z in Sep 2019: https://s.apache.org/slgsa * 1.2.z in Jun 2019: https://s.apache.org/g8lnu 2.0 and 1.3 were never a release line with the "stable" marker on it. 1.2 was the stable release line prior to 1.4. On Mon, Dec 2, 2019 at 1:58 PM Misty Linville wrote: > > Whether any non-dev users are unable to move off 1.3, I suppose. > > On Mon, Dec 2, 2019 at 11:04 AM Sean Busbey wrote: > > > On what, specifically? > > > > On Mon, Dec 2, 2019, 11:24 Misty Linville wrote: > > > > > Should the user list be allowed to weigh in? > > > > > > On Mon, Dec 2, 2019 at 7:33 AM Andrew Purtell > > > wrote: > > > > > > > I think there is a consensus on moving the stable pointer, based on > > > > earlier discussion. What I would suggest is a separate thread to > > propose > > > > it, and if nobody objects, do it. > > > > > > > > > On Dec 2, 2019, at 5:14 AM, 张铎(Duo Zhang) > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > +1. > > > > > > > > > > And I think 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. > > > > > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > > > > > 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" > > > > >> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] EOM branch-1.3 > > > > >> > > > > >> +1 > > > > >> > > > > >> On Sun, Dec 1, 2019 at 6:28 PM Andrew Purtell < > > > andrew.purt...@gmail.com > > > > >> <mailto:andrew.purt...@gmail.com>> > > > > >> wrote: > > > > >> > > > > >> +1 for EOL of 1.3. > > > > >> > > > > >> Onward to 1.6! > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >>> On Dec 1, 2019, at 5:38 PM, Sean Busbey > > > >> bus...@apache.org>> 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 getting the 1.3.6 > > release > > > > >>> out with the fixes for Jackson in HBASE-22728 out. > > > > >>> > > > > >>> Looking at the things that have since landed in branch-1.3 and > > > nothing > > > > >>> looks critical (these are all Major or Minor)[2]: > > > > >>> > > > > >>> - HBASE-23149 hbase shouldPerformMajorCompaction logic is not > > correct > > > > >>> - HBASE-23185 High cpu usage because getTable()#put() gets config > > > > >>> value every time > > > > >>> - HBASE-23261 Region stuck in transition while splitting > > > > >>> - HBASE-18439 Subclasses of o.a.h.h.chaos.actions.Action all use > > the > > > > >>> same logger > > > > >>> - HBASE-23207 Log a region open journal > > > > >>> - HBASE-23250 Log message about CleanerChore delegate > > initialization > > > > >>> should be at INFO > > &g
Re: [DISCUSS] EOM branch-1.3
Whether any non-dev users are unable to move off 1.3, I suppose. On Mon, Dec 2, 2019 at 11:04 AM Sean Busbey wrote: > On what, specifically? > > On Mon, Dec 2, 2019, 11:24 Misty Linville wrote: > > > Should the user list be allowed to weigh in? > > > > On Mon, Dec 2, 2019 at 7:33 AM Andrew Purtell > > wrote: > > > > > I think there is a consensus on moving the stable pointer, based on > > > earlier discussion. What I would suggest is a separate thread to > propose > > > it, and if nobody objects, do it. > > > > > > > On Dec 2, 2019, at 5:14 AM, 张铎(Duo Zhang) > > wrote: > > > > > > > > +1. > > > > > > > > And I think 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. > > > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > > > 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" > > > >> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] EOM branch-1.3 > > > >> > > > >> +1 > > > >> > > > >> On Sun, Dec 1, 2019 at 6:28 PM Andrew Purtell < > > andrew.purt...@gmail.com > > > >> <mailto:andrew.purt...@gmail.com>> > > > >> wrote: > > > >> > > > >> +1 for EOL of 1.3. > > > >> > > > >> Onward to 1.6! > > > >> > > > >> > > > >>> On Dec 1, 2019, at 5:38 PM, Sean Busbey > > >> bus...@apache.org>> 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 getting the 1.3.6 > release > > > >>> out with the fixes for Jackson in HBASE-22728 out. > > > >>> > > > >>> Looking at the things that have since landed in branch-1.3 and > > nothing > > > >>> looks critical (these are all Major or Minor)[2]: > > > >>> > > > >>> - HBASE-23149 hbase shouldPerformMajorCompaction logic is not > correct > > > >>> - HBASE-23185 High cpu usage because getTable()#put() gets config > > > >>> value every time > > > >>> - HBASE-23261 Region stuck in transition while splitting > > > >>> - HBASE-18439 Subclasses of o.a.h.h.chaos.actions.Action all use > the > > > >>> same logger > > > >>> - HBASE-23207 Log a region open journal > > > >>> - HBASE-23250 Log message about CleanerChore delegate > initialization > > > >>> should be at INFO > > > >>> > > > >>> Someone on 1.3.6 can get all these same things fixed by upgrading > to > > > >>> our current stable release. > > > >>> > > > >>> Releases on 1.3.z started in 2017. The branch has only averaged ~2 > > > >>> maintenance releases a year; I think reflecting a lack of community > > > >>> interest in maintaining the branch. For comparison 1.4 started > about > > a > > > >>> year later and has already had twice as many maintenance releases. > > > >>> > > > >>> - 1.3.0: 2017-01-16 > > > >>> - 1.3.1: 2017-04-21 > > > >>> - 1.3.2: 2018-03-07 > > > >>> - 1.3.2.1: 2018-06-13 > > > >>> - 1.3.3: 2018-12-21 > > > >>> - 1.3.5: 2019-06-10 > > > >>> - 1.3.6: 2019-10-20 > > > >>> > > > >>> Any objections to shutting branch-1.3 down? If folks show up down > the > > > >>> road and want to do the work of maintaining it for some reason, we > > can > > > >>> always spin it up again. > > > >>> > > > >>> [1]: > > > >>> > > > >>> There's more background if you search farther back, but most > > recently: > > > >>> > > > >>> * "Considering immediate EOL of branch-1.3 and branch-1.4" > > > >>> https://s.apache.org/f32d0 > > > >>> * https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-22728 > > > >>> * https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-22835 > > > >>> * ANNOUNCE for 1.3.6 included a warning > > > >>> "This is ought to be the last release in the 1.3 line unless > > something > > > >>> critical comes up within in the next month or so." > > > >>> > > > >>> [2]: > > > >>> > > > >>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/projects/HBASE/versions/12346250 > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > >
Re: [DISCUSS] EOM branch-1.3
On what, specifically? On Mon, Dec 2, 2019, 11:24 Misty Linville wrote: > Should the user list be allowed to weigh in? > > On Mon, Dec 2, 2019 at 7:33 AM Andrew Purtell > wrote: > > > I think there is a consensus on moving the stable pointer, based on > > earlier discussion. What I would suggest is a separate thread to propose > > it, and if nobody objects, do it. > > > > > On Dec 2, 2019, at 5:14 AM, 张铎(Duo Zhang) > wrote: > > > > > > +1. > > > > > > And I think 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. > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > 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" > > >> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] EOM branch-1.3 > > >> > > >> +1 > > >> > > >> On Sun, Dec 1, 2019 at 6:28 PM Andrew Purtell < > andrew.purt...@gmail.com > > >> <mailto:andrew.purt...@gmail.com>> > > >> wrote: > > >> > > >> +1 for EOL of 1.3. > > >> > > >> Onward to 1.6! > > >> > > >> > > >>> On Dec 1, 2019, at 5:38 PM, Sean Busbey > >> bus...@apache.org>> 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 getting the 1.3.6 release > > >>> out with the fixes for Jackson in HBASE-22728 out. > > >>> > > >>> Looking at the things that have since landed in branch-1.3 and > nothing > > >>> looks critical (these are all Major or Minor)[2]: > > >>> > > >>> - HBASE-23149 hbase shouldPerformMajorCompaction logic is not correct > > >>> - HBASE-23185 High cpu usage because getTable()#put() gets config > > >>> value every time > > >>> - HBASE-23261 Region stuck in transition while splitting > > >>> - HBASE-18439 Subclasses of o.a.h.h.chaos.actions.Action all use the > > >>> same logger > > >>> - HBASE-23207 Log a region open journal > > >>> - HBASE-23250 Log message about CleanerChore delegate initialization > > >>> should be at INFO > > >>> > > >>> Someone on 1.3.6 can get all these same things fixed by upgrading to > > >>> our current stable release. > > >>> > > >>> Releases on 1.3.z started in 2017. The branch has only averaged ~2 > > >>> maintenance releases a year; I think reflecting a lack of community > > >>> interest in maintaining the branch. For comparison 1.4 started about > a > > >>> year later and has already had twice as many maintenance releases. > > >>> > > >>> - 1.3.0: 2017-01-16 > > >>> - 1.3.1: 2017-04-21 > > >>> - 1.3.2: 2018-03-07 > > >>> - 1.3.2.1: 2018-06-13 > > >>> - 1.3.3: 2018-12-21 > > >>> - 1.3.5: 2019-06-10 > > >>> - 1.3.6: 2019-10-20 > > >>> > > >>> Any objections to shutting branch-1.3 down? If folks show up down the > > >>> road and want to do the work of maintaining it for some reason, we > can > > >>> always spin it up again. > > >>> > > >>> [1]: > > >>> > > >>> There's more background if you search farther back, but most > recently: > > >>> > > >>> * "Considering immediate EOL of branch-1.3 and branch-1.4" > > >>> https://s.apache.org/f32d0 > > >>> * https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-22728 > > >>> * https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-22835 > > >>> * ANNOUNCE for 1.3.6 included a warning > > >>> "This is ought to be the last release in the 1.3 line unless > something > > >>> critical comes up within in the next month or so." > > >>> > > >>> [2]: > > >>> > > >>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/projects/HBASE/versions/12346250 > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >
Re: [DISCUSS] EOM branch-1.3
Should the user list be allowed to weigh in? On Mon, Dec 2, 2019 at 7:33 AM Andrew Purtell wrote: > I think there is a consensus on moving the stable pointer, based on > earlier discussion. What I would suggest is a separate thread to propose > it, and if nobody objects, do it. > > > On Dec 2, 2019, at 5:14 AM, 张铎(Duo Zhang) wrote: > > > > +1. > > > > And I think 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. > > > > 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. > > > > 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" > >> 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 EOL of 1.3. > >> > >> Onward to 1.6! > >> > >> > >>> On Dec 1, 2019, at 5:38 PM, Sean Busbey >> bus...@apache.org>> 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 getting the 1.3.6 release > >>> out with the fixes for Jackson in HBASE-22728 out. > >>> > >>> Looking at the things that have since landed in branch-1.3 and nothing > >>> looks critical (these are all Major or Minor)[2]: > >>> > >>> - HBASE-23149 hbase shouldPerformMajorCompaction logic is not correct > >>> - HBASE-23185 High cpu usage because getTable()#put() gets config > >>> value every time > >>> - HBASE-23261 Region stuck in transition while splitting > >>> - HBASE-18439 Subclasses of o.a.h.h.chaos.actions.Action all use the > >>> same logger > >>> - HBASE-23207 Log a region open journal > >>> - HBASE-23250 Log message about CleanerChore delegate initialization > >>> should be at INFO > >>> > >>> Someone on 1.3.6 can get all these same things fixed by upgrading to > >>> our current stable release. > >>> > >>> Releases on 1.3.z started in 2017. The branch has only averaged ~2 > >>> maintenance releases a year; I think reflecting a lack of community > >>> interest in maintaining the branch. For comparison 1.4 started about a > >>> year later and has already had twice as many maintenance releases. > >>> > >>> - 1.3.0: 2017-01-16 > >>> - 1.3.1: 2017-04-21 > >>> - 1.3.2: 2018-03-07 > >>> - 1.3.2.1: 2018-06-13 > >>> - 1.3.3: 2018-12-21 > >>> - 1.3.5: 2019-06-10 > >>> - 1.3.6: 2019-10-20 > >>> > >>> Any objections to shutting branch-1.3 down? If folks show up down the > >>> road and want to do the work of maintaining it for some reason, we can > >>> always spin it up again. > >>> > >>> [1]: > >>> > >>> There's more background if you search farther back, but most recently: > >>> > >>> * "Considering immediate EOL of branch-1.3 and branch-1.4" > >>> https://s.apache.org/f32d0 > >>> * https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-22728 > >>> * https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-22835 > >>> * ANNOUNCE for 1.3.6 included a warning > >>> "This is ought to be the last release in the 1.3 line unless something > >>> critical comes up within in the next month or so." > >>> > >>> [2]: > >>> > >>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/projects/HBASE/versions/12346250 > >> > >> > >> >
Re: [DISCUSS] EOM branch-1.3
I think there is a consensus on moving the stable pointer, based on earlier discussion. What I would suggest is a separate thread to propose it, and if nobody objects, do it. > On Dec 2, 2019, at 5:14 AM, 张铎(Duo Zhang) wrote: > > +1. > > And I think 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. > > 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. > > 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" >> 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 EOL of 1.3. >> >> Onward to 1.6! >> >> >>> On Dec 1, 2019, at 5:38 PM, Sean Busbey > bus...@apache.org>> 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 getting the 1.3.6 release >>> out with the fixes for Jackson in HBASE-22728 out. >>> >>> Looking at the things that have since landed in branch-1.3 and nothing >>> looks critical (these are all Major or Minor)[2]: >>> >>> - HBASE-23149 hbase shouldPerformMajorCompaction logic is not correct >>> - HBASE-23185 High cpu usage because getTable()#put() gets config >>> value every time >>> - HBASE-23261 Region stuck in transition while splitting >>> - HBASE-18439 Subclasses of o.a.h.h.chaos.actions.Action all use the >>> same logger >>> - HBASE-23207 Log a region open journal >>> - HBASE-23250 Log message about CleanerChore delegate initialization >>> should be at INFO >>> >>> Someone on 1.3.6 can get all these same things fixed by upgrading to >>> our current stable release. >>> >>> Releases on 1.3.z started in 2017. The branch has only averaged ~2 >>> maintenance releases a year; I think reflecting a lack of community >>> interest in maintaining the branch. For comparison 1.4 started about a >>> year later and has already had twice as many maintenance releases. >>> >>> - 1.3.0: 2017-01-16 >>> - 1.3.1: 2017-04-21 >>> - 1.3.2: 2018-03-07 >>> - 1.3.2.1: 2018-06-13 >>> - 1.3.3: 2018-12-21 >>> - 1.3.5: 2019-06-10 >>> - 1.3.6: 2019-10-20 >>> >>> Any objections to shutting branch-1.3 down? If folks show up down the >>> road and want to do the work of maintaining it for some reason, we can >>> always spin it up again. >>> >>> [1]: >>> >>> There's more background if you search farther back, but most recently: >>> >>> * "Considering immediate EOL of branch-1.3 and branch-1.4" >>> https://s.apache.org/f32d0 >>> * https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-22728 >>> * https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-22835 >>> * ANNOUNCE for 1.3.6 included a warning >>> "This is ought to be the last release in the 1.3 line unless something >>> critical comes up within in the next month or so." >>> >>> [2]: >>> >>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/projects/HBASE/versions/12346250 >> >> >>
Re: [DISCUSS] EOM branch-1.3
+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 > > On Sun, Dec 1, 2019 at 6:28 PM Andrew Purtell <mailto:andrew.purt...@gmail.com>> > wrote: > > +1 for EOL of 1.3. > > Onward to 1.6! > > > > On Dec 1, 2019, at 5:38 PM, Sean Busbey bus...@apache.org>> 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 getting the 1.3.6 release > > out with the fixes for Jackson in HBASE-22728 out. > > > > Looking at the things that have since landed in branch-1.3 and nothing > > looks critical (these are all Major or Minor)[2]: > > > > - HBASE-23149 hbase shouldPerformMajorCompaction logic is not correct > > - HBASE-23185 High cpu usage because getTable()#put() gets config > > value every time > > - HBASE-23261 Region stuck in transition while splitting > > - HBASE-18439 Subclasses of o.a.h.h.chaos.actions.Action all use the > > same logger > > - HBASE-23207 Log a region open journal > > - HBASE-23250 Log message about CleanerChore delegate initialization > > should be at INFO > > > > Someone on 1.3.6 can get all these same things fixed by upgrading to > > our current stable release. > > > > Releases on 1.3.z started in 2017. The branch has only averaged ~2 > > maintenance releases a year; I think reflecting a lack of community > > interest in maintaining the branch. For comparison 1.4 started about a > > year later and has already had twice as many maintenance releases. > > > > - 1.3.0: 2017-01-16 > > - 1.3.1: 2017-04-21 > > - 1.3.2: 2018-03-07 > > - 1.3.2.1: 2018-06-13 > > - 1.3.3: 2018-12-21 > > - 1.3.5: 2019-06-10 > > - 1.3.6: 2019-10-20 > > > > Any objections to shutting branch-1.3 down? If folks show up down the > > road and want to do the work of maintaining it for some reason, we can > > always spin it up again. > > > > [1]: > > > > There's more background if you search farther back, but most recently: > > > > * "Considering immediate EOL of branch-1.3 and branch-1.4" > > https://s.apache.org/f32d0 > > * https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-22728 > > * https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-22835 > > * ANNOUNCE for 1.3.6 included a warning > > "This is ought to be the last release in the 1.3 line unless something > > critical comes up within in the next month or so." > > > > [2]: > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/projects/HBASE/versions/12346250 > > >
Re: [DISCUSS] EOM branch-1.3
+1. And I think 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. 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. 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" > 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 EOL of 1.3. > > Onward to 1.6! > > > > On Dec 1, 2019, at 5:38 PM, Sean Busbey bus...@apache.org>> 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 getting the 1.3.6 release > > out with the fixes for Jackson in HBASE-22728 out. > > > > Looking at the things that have since landed in branch-1.3 and nothing > > looks critical (these are all Major or Minor)[2]: > > > > - HBASE-23149 hbase shouldPerformMajorCompaction logic is not correct > > - HBASE-23185 High cpu usage because getTable()#put() gets config > > value every time > > - HBASE-23261 Region stuck in transition while splitting > > - HBASE-18439 Subclasses of o.a.h.h.chaos.actions.Action all use the > > same logger > > - HBASE-23207 Log a region open journal > > - HBASE-23250 Log message about CleanerChore delegate initialization > > should be at INFO > > > > Someone on 1.3.6 can get all these same things fixed by upgrading to > > our current stable release. > > > > Releases on 1.3.z started in 2017. The branch has only averaged ~2 > > maintenance releases a year; I think reflecting a lack of community > > interest in maintaining the branch. For comparison 1.4 started about a > > year later and has already had twice as many maintenance releases. > > > > - 1.3.0: 2017-01-16 > > - 1.3.1: 2017-04-21 > > - 1.3.2: 2018-03-07 > > - 1.3.2.1: 2018-06-13 > > - 1.3.3: 2018-12-21 > > - 1.3.5: 2019-06-10 > > - 1.3.6: 2019-10-20 > > > > Any objections to shutting branch-1.3 down? If folks show up down the > > road and want to do the work of maintaining it for some reason, we can > > always spin it up again. > > > > [1]: > > > > There's more background if you search farther back, but most recently: > > > > * "Considering immediate EOL of branch-1.3 and branch-1.4" > > https://s.apache.org/f32d0 > > * https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-22728 > > * https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-22835 > > * ANNOUNCE for 1.3.6 included a warning > > "This is ought to be the last release in the 1.3 line unless something > > critical comes up within in the next month or so." > > > > [2]: > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/projects/HBASE/versions/12346250 > > >
Re: [DISCUSS] EOM branch-1.3
+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 EOL of 1.3. Onward to 1.6! > On Dec 1, 2019, at 5:38 PM, Sean Busbey > mailto:bus...@apache.org>> 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 getting the 1.3.6 release > out with the fixes for Jackson in HBASE-22728 out. > > Looking at the things that have since landed in branch-1.3 and nothing > looks critical (these are all Major or Minor)[2]: > > - HBASE-23149 hbase shouldPerformMajorCompaction logic is not correct > - HBASE-23185 High cpu usage because getTable()#put() gets config > value every time > - HBASE-23261 Region stuck in transition while splitting > - HBASE-18439 Subclasses of o.a.h.h.chaos.actions.Action all use the > same logger > - HBASE-23207 Log a region open journal > - HBASE-23250 Log message about CleanerChore delegate initialization > should be at INFO > > Someone on 1.3.6 can get all these same things fixed by upgrading to > our current stable release. > > Releases on 1.3.z started in 2017. The branch has only averaged ~2 > maintenance releases a year; I think reflecting a lack of community > interest in maintaining the branch. For comparison 1.4 started about a > year later and has already had twice as many maintenance releases. > > - 1.3.0: 2017-01-16 > - 1.3.1: 2017-04-21 > - 1.3.2: 2018-03-07 > - 1.3.2.1: 2018-06-13 > - 1.3.3: 2018-12-21 > - 1.3.5: 2019-06-10 > - 1.3.6: 2019-10-20 > > Any objections to shutting branch-1.3 down? If folks show up down the > road and want to do the work of maintaining it for some reason, we can > always spin it up again. > > [1]: > > There's more background if you search farther back, but most recently: > > * "Considering immediate EOL of branch-1.3 and branch-1.4" > https://s.apache.org/f32d0 > * https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-22728 > * https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-22835 > * ANNOUNCE for 1.3.6 included a warning > "This is ought to be the last release in the 1.3 line unless something > critical comes up within in the next month or so." > > [2]: > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/projects/HBASE/versions/12346250
Re: [DISCUSS] EOM branch-1.3
+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 about a year. Most recently, > > we had a growing consensus[1] to EOM after getting the 1.3.6 release > > out with the fixes for Jackson in HBASE-22728 out. > > > > Looking at the things that have since landed in branch-1.3 and nothing > > looks critical (these are all Major or Minor)[2]: > > > > - HBASE-23149 hbase shouldPerformMajorCompaction logic is not correct > > - HBASE-23185 High cpu usage because getTable()#put() gets config > > value every time > > - HBASE-23261 Region stuck in transition while splitting > > - HBASE-18439 Subclasses of o.a.h.h.chaos.actions.Action all use the > > same logger > > - HBASE-23207 Log a region open journal > > - HBASE-23250 Log message about CleanerChore delegate initialization > > should be at INFO > > > > Someone on 1.3.6 can get all these same things fixed by upgrading to > > our current stable release. > > > > Releases on 1.3.z started in 2017. The branch has only averaged ~2 > > maintenance releases a year; I think reflecting a lack of community > > interest in maintaining the branch. For comparison 1.4 started about a > > year later and has already had twice as many maintenance releases. > > > > - 1.3.0: 2017-01-16 > > - 1.3.1: 2017-04-21 > > - 1.3.2: 2018-03-07 > > - 1.3.2.1: 2018-06-13 > > - 1.3.3: 2018-12-21 > > - 1.3.5: 2019-06-10 > > - 1.3.6: 2019-10-20 > > > > Any objections to shutting branch-1.3 down? If folks show up down the > > road and want to do the work of maintaining it for some reason, we can > > always spin it up again. > > > > [1]: > > > > There's more background if you search farther back, but most recently: > > > > * "Considering immediate EOL of branch-1.3 and branch-1.4" > > https://s.apache.org/f32d0 > > * https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-22728 > > * https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-22835 > > * ANNOUNCE for 1.3.6 included a warning > > "This is ought to be the last release in the 1.3 line unless something > > critical comes up within in the next month or so." > > > > [2]: > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/projects/HBASE/versions/12346250 >
Re: [DISCUSS] EOM branch-1.3
+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 getting the 1.3.6 release > out with the fixes for Jackson in HBASE-22728 out. > > Looking at the things that have since landed in branch-1.3 and nothing > looks critical (these are all Major or Minor)[2]: > > - HBASE-23149 hbase shouldPerformMajorCompaction logic is not correct > - HBASE-23185 High cpu usage because getTable()#put() gets config > value every time > - HBASE-23261 Region stuck in transition while splitting > - HBASE-18439 Subclasses of o.a.h.h.chaos.actions.Action all use the > same logger > - HBASE-23207 Log a region open journal > - HBASE-23250 Log message about CleanerChore delegate initialization > should be at INFO > > Someone on 1.3.6 can get all these same things fixed by upgrading to > our current stable release. > > Releases on 1.3.z started in 2017. The branch has only averaged ~2 > maintenance releases a year; I think reflecting a lack of community > interest in maintaining the branch. For comparison 1.4 started about a > year later and has already had twice as many maintenance releases. > > - 1.3.0: 2017-01-16 > - 1.3.1: 2017-04-21 > - 1.3.2: 2018-03-07 > - 1.3.2.1: 2018-06-13 > - 1.3.3: 2018-12-21 > - 1.3.5: 2019-06-10 > - 1.3.6: 2019-10-20 > > Any objections to shutting branch-1.3 down? If folks show up down the > road and want to do the work of maintaining it for some reason, we can > always spin it up again. > > [1]: > > There's more background if you search farther back, but most recently: > > * "Considering immediate EOL of branch-1.3 and branch-1.4" > https://s.apache.org/f32d0 > * https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-22728 > * https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-22835 > * ANNOUNCE for 1.3.6 included a warning > "This is ought to be the last release in the 1.3 line unless something > critical comes up within in the next month or so." > > [2]: > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/projects/HBASE/versions/12346250
