Thanks Enis.
If there're no objections, I'll open umbrella jira for release then.
I went back and glanced at the discussions on mobs. Looks like last
time(s) there were these sorts of comments:
- "How stable is it on master, is it stable enough to backport to
branch-1".
There was a comment that there was some sizable cleanup going on in
master, or some commented out/disabled tests? Are there any changes here?
What others think - how stable is it now in master?
- "Shouldn't we rather try to get 2.0 release out and have mobs there". -
So how far do we feel 2.0 release is?
- A question to dev@ and user@ groups - "are there actually folks already
using it in trunk?" - that question got no replies as far as I can see.
Anyone can comment here?
Should we revive [DISCUSS] thread on mobs? I think last time the ball was
dropped when Andrew asked around who already uses mobs in trunk, if I've
not missed something?
I think as was noted before, backporting of spark connector should be less
risky as it's less intrusive. So I guess we're waiting on the progress
on HBASE-14160 here?
-Mikhail
On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 2:34 PM, Ted Yu <yuzhih...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I have linked HBASE-14801 to HBASE-14160
>
> Thanks for the reminder.
>
> On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 2:30 PM, Sean Busbey <bus...@cloudera.com> wrote:
>
> > 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
> >
>
--
Thanks,
Michael Antonov
