+1 to 1.2 being feature complete corrently. There has already been a release candidate and folks are burning down the blockers currently to prep for the next RC.
I like the idea of mob and sparkonhbase for 1.3. I'm more comfortable with sparkonhbase -- it is a new module and thus not as invasive. Jon. On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 4:55 PM, Andrew Purtell <andrew.purt...@gmail.com> wrote: > Pretty sure Sean expressed 1.2 is feature complete and I'd support that. > Can we wait for 1.3 for MOB ? Can look at Spark connector then too. > > > On Jan 19, 2016, at 4:52 PM, Ted Yu <yuzhih...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Looks like 1.2.0 RC is in near future. > > > > I wonder if it is time to revive this thread (due to customer interest). > > > > As far as I can tell, the Mob related tests have been passing in the > recent > > past. > > > > Thanks > > > >> On Wed, Oct 28, 2015 at 2:07 PM, Andrew Purtell <apurt...@apache.org> > wrote: > >> > >> I haven't heard an user answer in the affirmative to wanting it. > >> > >> I'll volunteer to RM 1.3, whenever we need it. Premature to have that > >> discussion without 1.2 even out the door yet, though. > >> > >> > >> > >> On Wed, Oct 28, 2015 at 1:01 PM, Stephen Jiang <syuanjiang...@gmail.com > > > >> wrote: > >> > >>> Actually, it is actively changing in master branch on MOB feature made > me > >>> think about: if we ever want to port MOB feature to branch-1, now is a > >> good > >>> time. We can commit changes in both branches; otherwise, we probably > >> would > >>> miss some commits when we port MOB to branch-1 in a late time. > >>> > >>> I am more thinking about 1.3 release (certainly not 1.2), which we > still > >>> have some time to stabilize and allow interesting party to play with > the > >>> feature and give feedback. > >>> > >>> Thanks > >>> Stephen > >>> > >>> PS. given the features we discussed in 2.0.0 in the last community > >> meeting, > >>> I think it would not release earlier than 1.3 :-), unless we > >> intentionally > >>> not find a release manager for 1.3. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>>> On Wed, Oct 28, 2015 at 9:09 AM, Sean Busbey <bus...@cloudera.com> > >>> wrote: > >>> > >>>> It's practically November. Matteo, are you up for a thread on target > >>>> dates for 2.0.0 to start RCs? > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> On Wed, Oct 28, 2015 at 11:02 AM, Elliott Clark <ecl...@apache.org> > >>> wrote: > >>>>> I feel the same lets keep branch-1 stable, and work towards a faster > >>>> 2.0.0. > >>>>> > >>>>>> On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 4:52 PM, Stack <st...@duboce.net> wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> IMO, MOB is still not settled in Master. It has a bunch of flakey > >>> tests > >>>>>> that are getting fixed by Jingcheng or I've disabled them till > >> someone > >>>> has > >>>>>> time to look at them. There is also a load of duplicated code that > >> is > >>>> being > >>>>>> cleaned up (Matteo). > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Its not ready to go back to branch-1 IMO. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Are there users who'd like it backported? > >>>>>> St.Ack > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 10:55 AM, Stephen Jiang < > >>>> syuanjiang...@gmail.com> > >>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> Hello, guys, the MOB is in master branch. I saw bug fixes > >> happening > >>>> in > >>>>>>> master branch. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> I just wonder whether there is a plan to put MOB in branch-1. I > >> am > >>>>>> afraid > >>>>>>> if we don't do it now, it would be harder in the future to back > >> port > >>>> if > >>>>>> we > >>>>>>> decide to do it in a late time. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Thanks > >>>>>>> Stephen > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 1:15 PM, Andrew Purtell < > >>> apurt...@apache.org> > >>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Thanks Jon. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> When I'm back in the office I'll check out master and have a > >> look > >>>> into > >>>>>>> any > >>>>>>>> locally repeatable test failures. Anyway in my opinion at this > >>>> point it > >>>>>>>> would make the most sense for us to keep the MOB changes in on > >>>> master > >>>>>> and > >>>>>>>> deal with any fallout in follow on issues. I think all who voted > >>> +1 > >>>> for > >>>>>>>> this change were aware that large changes like this can have a > >>>>>>> temporarily > >>>>>>>> destabilizing effect. As long as the MOB devs are around to help > >>>> clean > >>>>>>> up, > >>>>>>>> we should be good! > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 8:09 PM, Jonathan Hsieh < > >> j...@cloudera.com > >>>> > >>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> I had two clean full builds/unit test on my internal setup and > >>> the > >>>>>>> latest > >>>>>>>>> build went back to ~4325 total tests and failures on Procedure > >>>> relate > >>>>>>>> tests > >>>>>>>>> cases. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> I don't think mob is responsible for these failures. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Jon. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 4:32 PM, Jonathan Hsieh < > >>> j...@cloudera.com > >>>>> > >>>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Although the the precommit buiid passed, and the compilation > >>> and > >>>>>> mob > >>>>>>>>>> testing I ran after before the merge was commited passed, It > >>>> looks > >>>>>>> like > >>>>>>>>>> the first full build after the merge [1] failed. It looked > >>> like > >>>>>>>>>> something hung along the way, and that most of the previous > >>>> builds > >>>>>>> had > >>>>>>>>>> failed for various reasons. :( > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> I kicked it off again have it do another try. If it is mob > >>>> related > >>>>>>>> we'll > >>>>>>>>>> take hunt it down and take care of it. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Jon. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> [1] https://builds.apache.org/job/HBase-TRUNK/6672/ > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 1:16 PM, Jonathan Hsieh < > >>>> j...@cloudera.com> > >>>>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> I've merged the code in to master. Thanks for all the hard > >>>> work > >>>>>>>>>>> Jingcheng and thanks to all who have been involved with > >>>> reviews, > >>>>>>>>>>> discussion, and voting! > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> Jon > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 12:45 AM, Jingcheng Du < > >>>>>>>> jingcheng...@intel.com> > >>>>>>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> Hi all, > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> The vote passes with 8 +1s and no -1. Thanks all for > >>> guiding, > >>>>>>> helping > >>>>>>>>> and > >>>>>>>>>>>> voting! > >>>>>>>>>>>> We will work on the merge activities and will let guys > >> know > >>>> about > >>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>>>>>> detailed plan for merge time. > >>>>>>>>>>>> And thanks Jon for helping merge this branch to trunk! > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> Regards, > >>>>>>>>>>>> Jingcheng > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> -- > >>>>>>>>>>>> View this message in context: > >> > http://apache-hbase.679495.n3.nabble.com/RESULT-VOTE-Merge-branch-hbase-11339-HBase-MOB-to-trunk-tp4073446.html > >>>>>>>>>>>> Sent from the HBase Developer mailing list archive at > >>>> Nabble.com. > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> -- > >>>>>>>>>>> // Jonathan Hsieh (shay) > >>>>>>>>>>> // HBase Tech Lead, Software Engineer, Cloudera > >>>>>>>>>>> // j...@cloudera.com // @jmhsieh > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> -- > >>>>>>>>>> // Jonathan Hsieh (shay) > >>>>>>>>>> // HBase Tech Lead, Software Engineer, Cloudera > >>>>>>>>>> // j...@cloudera.com // @jmhsieh > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> -- > >>>>>>>>> // Jonathan Hsieh (shay) > >>>>>>>>> // HBase Tech Lead, Software Engineer, Cloudera > >>>>>>>>> // j...@cloudera.com // @jmhsieh > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> -- > >>>>>>>> Best regards, > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> - Andy > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - > >>> Piet > >>>>>> Hein > >>>>>>>> (via Tom White) > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> -- > >>>> Sean > >> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> Best regards, > >> > >> - Andy > >> > >> Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet Hein > >> (via Tom White) > >> > -- // Jonathan Hsieh (shay) // HBase Tech Lead, Software Engineer, Cloudera // j...@cloudera.com // @jmhsieh
