I would love to see 1.1 in or before May. We already have good stuff in branch-1, enough to justify a minor release. Some of the "features" are still in the pipeline waiting to be finished (MOB, procV2, etc). Personally, I think we should get HBASE-12972, and ProcV2, RPC quotas (and other multi-tenancy improvements not yet backported) and call it 1.1.
I would +1 either Nick or Andrew, both should be excellent RMs. Enis On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 11:05 AM, Andrew Purtell <apurt...@apache.org> wrote: > FWIW, the Region proposal (HBASE-12972) is ready for review. The companion > issue for SplitTransaction and RegionMergeTransaction (HBASE-12975) needs > more discussion but could be ready to go in a <= one month timeframe. > > On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 10:30 AM, Nick Dimiduk <ndimi...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > I think we can learn a lesson or two from the vendor marketing machines > -- > > a release timed with HBaseCon would be ideal in this regard. My > obligations > > to the event are minimal, so I'm willing to volunteer as RM for 1.1. Do > we > > think we can make some of these decisions in time for spinning RC's in > > mid-April? That's just about a month away. > > > > -n > > > > On Sat, Mar 14, 2015 at 10:37 AM, Elliott Clark <ecl...@apache.org> > wrote: > > > > > I'm most looking forward to rpc quotas and the buffer improvements that > > > stack has put in. So for me getting a 1.1 in May 1 would be cool. > > > That would allow us to talk about what was just released at HBaseCon, > and > > > maybe even have 1.1.0 in production at places. > > > > > > On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 11:44 AM, Sean Busbey <bus...@cloudera.com> > > wrote: > > > > > > > The only reason I can think of to make decisions now would be if we > > want > > > to > > > > ensure we have consensus for the changes for Phoenix and enough time > to > > > > implement them. > > > > > > > > Given that AFAIK it's those changes that'll drive having a 1.1 > release, > > > > seems prudent. But I haven't been tracking the changes lately. > > > > > > > > I think we're all in agreement that something needs to be done, and > > that > > > > HBase 1.1 and Phoenix 5 are the places to do it. Probably it won't be > > > > contentious to just decide as changes are ready? > > > > > > > > -- > > > > Sean > > > > On Mar 13, 2015 1:28 PM, "Andrew Purtell" <apurt...@apache.org> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > That was my question.. We can discuss them independently? Or is > > there a > > > > > reason not to? > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 11:10 AM, Sean Busbey <bus...@cloudera.com > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 12:31 PM, Andrew Purtell < > > > apurt...@apache.org> > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > Do we need to couple decisions for 1.1 and 2.0 in the same > > > > discussion? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Like what? Interface changes for Phoenix maybe? > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > Sean > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > Best regards, > > > > > > > > > > - Andy > > > > > > > > > > Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet > > > Hein > > > > > (via Tom White) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > Best regards, > > - Andy > > Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet Hein > (via Tom White) >
