The jira tracking blockers for hbase-spark making it into branch-1 is HBASE-14160. If HBASE-14801 is required, please make sure it is listed.
On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 3:32 PM, Ted Yu <yuzhih...@gmail.com> wrote: > There is also hbase-spark module worth considering for backport. > > Current active JIRA is HBASE-14801 > > FYI > > On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 1:25 PM, Enis Söztutar <enis....@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Thanks Mikhail. Looks like a good enough list for justifying a minor > > release. > > > > HBASE-15181 is almost ready to go. > > > > What do you guys think about MOB in branch-1, and possibly in 1.3. There > > was a separate thread some time ago, don't remember the conclusion there. > > > > Enis > > > > On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 12:54 PM, Mikhail Antonov <anto...@apache.org> > > wrote: > > > > > To me it's not really about individual big features (besides, big > > features > > > might be hard to accommodate in a minor release), but enough good > things > > to > > > justify minor release. > > > > > > What we can have (unless I'm missing something): > > > > > > [Already done or to be further improved] > > > - HBASE-15177 - more GC-friendly allocations in RPC services > > > - HBASE-14457 - multi WAL improvements > > > - HBASE-15222 - optimizations in metrics system, some more metrics > > > (like HBASE-15135, HBASE-15068) > > > - HBASE-15306, HBASE-15136 - improving call queues handling > > > > > > [To be reviewed?): > > > - HBASE-15181 - date based tiered compactions (?) > > > - HBASE-11290 - unlock RegionStates. There was a patch update > relatively > > > recently to it based on comments. > > > > > > [Possible?] > > > - HBASE-13557 - special handling for system tables WALs > > > - HBASE-13017 - keep table state in meta > > > > > > 1.2 was cut off mid-June 2015.. Should be enough time since then for a > > > minor release. > > > > > > Mikhail > > > > > > On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 10:56 AM, Enis Söztutar <enis....@gmail.com> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > What are the "features" in current branch-1 that is not there in 1.2? > > If > > > > there is none, it is not worth branching yet. > > > > > > > > Enis > > > > > > > > On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 7:57 PM, Andrew Purtell < > > > andrew.purt...@gmail.com> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > No, each 0.94.x/0.96.x/98.x was or is a minor release. :-) > Sometimes > > > the > > > > > changes in those releases could all be considered "point" in scope > or > > > > > effect but not always. Further supporting this point of view, when > we > > > > went > > > > > from 0.94 to 0.96 it was a major increment, in effect, due to 'the > > > > > singularity'. > > > > > > > > > > Doing a new minor every month would be more like a return to past > > state > > > > of > > > > > affairs, for better or worse, in my humble opinion. > > > > > > > > > > > On Feb 24, 2016, at 7:46 PM, Stack <st...@duboce.net> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > >> On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 11:50 AM, Elliott Clark < > > ecl...@apache.org> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > >> > > > > > >> Is it time to branch for 1.3 ? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Sean did a great job getting 1.2 out. However it was a hard > > > difficult > > > > > >> process that I wouldn't wish on anyone. Is it time to branch for > > 1.3 > > > > and > > > > > >> start the process of stabilizing again so that we can get a > > monthly > > > > > cadence > > > > > >> for minor releases going? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Monthly cadence for minors is upping the ante. We used to be > about > > > > > > monthly's for point releases. > > > > > > > > > > > > +1 for the mighty Mikhail as RM. Sean, please UPS him the special > > > robe > > > > > that > > > > > > he has to wear while performing his RMness duties. > > > > > > > > > > > > St.Ack > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- Sean
