What's about reducing the default log level?
2014-02-10 12:24 GMT-05:00 Stack <st...@duboce.net>: > Suggestions for 1.0.0 if if it is to come out in next month or so: > > + Update included libs (e.g. move to log4j2) > > + Enable distributed log replay as default (fix bugs) > + Enable hfilev3 as default. > + Ship with default logging level set to INFO and content of the logs still > makes sense > > What else? > > + Enable dynamic config and schema by default. > > > St.Ack > > > > > On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 4:09 PM, Stack <st...@duboce.net> wrote: > > > On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 1:52 PM, lars hofhansl <la...@apache.org> wrote: > > > >> I'm happy to volunteer. Happy if Enis does it, too. > >> > >> > > I'd be happy to do it too but my thinking is that it is good to spread > the > > role around. > > St.Ack > > > > > > > > > >> ------------------------------ > >> *From:* Stack <st...@duboce.net> > >> *To:* HBase Dev List <dev@hbase.apache.org> > >> *Cc:* lars hofhansl <la...@apache.org> > >> *Sent:* Monday, January 20, 2014 1:43 PM > >> *Subject:* Re: DISCUSSION: 1.0.0 > >> > >> On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 1:20 PM, Enis Söztutar <e...@apache.org> wrote: > >> > >> I think whether we will need a new RM will depend on the decision to > >> release 1.0 from 0.98 branches or 0.99 branches(current trunk). > >> > >> > >> I think it should have an RM regardless. We should probably try to put > a > >> higher polish on a 1.0 than we would mayhaps on a lesser release. RM > will > >> have enough work on their plate just keeping up state (IMO). > >> > >> > >> > >> We can do the previous practice of releasing 0.99.0, then turning 0.99.x > >> as > >> the 1.0.0. In that case, I can also volunteer as well. > >> > >> > >> Good by me. Anyone else interested in the job? Speak up if so. > >> > >> If not, you'd get it by default Enis. Else you and whoever will have to > >> dook it out. > >> > >> St.Ack > >> > >> > >> > > >
