I don't think we need to do a major for RS groups. I do think Elliott's points can be addressed by getting a 2.0 out the door soon containing whatever we have on deck now to go in.
Probably not going to satisfy everyone here - but maybe? > On Mar 17, 2016, at 7:48 AM, Matteo Bertozzi <[email protected]> wrote: > > Why MOB and RegionServer Groups should be in a new major version and stuff > like the new RPC queue (HBASE-15136), date based tiered compactions > (HBASE-15181), special handling for system tables WALs (HBASE-13557), keep > table state in meta (HBASE-13017) or the Region Normalizer (HBASE-13103) > are considered for or already in 1.x? > > to me, and probably most of the users, a new Major version means that APIs > will break, wire may break, there may be an upgrade of some sort and so on. > which is not true for MOB and RS groups. > > In case we do a major for RS groups and Mob will that still based on the > 1.x branch? > > On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 11:23 PM, Andrew Purtell <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> I remember explicitly saying I was not against a backport of the MOB >> feature. You are misrepresenting my position a bit. Sure, I'm a skeptic. >> Not a big deal because I don't think we can or should seek a blanket rule. >> Sometimes a feature will have sufficient interest and applicability that a >> backport is worth considering, and then there's a question of what kind of >> risk the changes envisioned carry. RS groups as implemented are low risk. >> Meanwhile MOB is highly invasive. I think RS groups would have two large >> production users soon after introduction into branch-1. I'm not sure about >> MOB. They are worth consideration on their own merits and on user demand >> for them. >> >> Another thing we could do is get 2.0 started right now. Whatever major >> that doesn't make the cut could go into 3.0. I think the requests for these >> backports are coming because there is no near time horizon for a 2.0 >> release. So set it soon? >> >> >>> On Mar 16, 2016, at 9:27 PM, Elliott Clark <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 6:26 PM, Andrew Purtell < >> [email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Because I for one might well want to run RS groups in production with >>>> branch-1 code without waiting for or dealing with the other stuff >> coming in >>>> any 2.0. >>> >>> >>> This is the same email that I sent for MOB. Which you agreed with then. >> But >>> not now. There's nothing substantively different about this feature that >>> makes it different from any other feature. It's a large change that >> wasn't >>> there in 1.X line. >>> >>> I would like backups, and procedure v2 in 1.x. However even if it landed >>> tomorrow they shouldn't be back ported as it's a large feature that's not >>> ready. If we want anyone to ever upgrade major versions, then the new >>> features have to come along with the new apis. Other wise we will end up >> in >>> the same state that Hadoop has. >>
