For Spark connector, we should start a separate discussion thread about backporting to branch-1.
Zhan has a bug fix coming this week which deals with how negative numbers are handled in comparison. FYI On Mon, Mar 21, 2016 at 1:35 AM, Mikhail Antonov <olorinb...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi folks, > > bringing this topic up again. I'm planning to start spinning 1.3 builds and > see if/where they break in a week or two, and (depending on how it does) > start preparing RCs in a month or maybe two. So, let's see where we are. > > Big items first. There were long debates around three big items - MOBs, > Spark connector and RS groups, whether we should have them or not. > > - MOBs > I believe we decided that they aren't going to go in branch-1, and hence > not in branch-1.3 for sure. We might get back to that debate and > re-consider MOBs for branch-1 if 2.0 is delayed, but almost certainly they > won't make it in 1.3 timeframe anyway as I feel. > > - Spark connector - HBASE-14160 it looks like it has 3 subtasks open, one > of which is big one (HBASE-14375) - define public API for Spark > integration. From the Jira looks like active work is happening on other > subtasks, but not on this one. So how's public API going? How stable it is? > Who would want to have Spark in 1.3 and willing to help with this? OTOH - > who has objections about back-porting it? Has anyone been using it in some > real environment? > > - RS groups - there was recently a thread about them, I'd like to bring it > up again and get to some conclusion. > > Other features which we had in flight a month ago - > > - HBASE-15181 - date based tiered compactions has landed > - HBASE-11290 - unlock RegionStates. I'm afraid the codebase has moved > forward quite a bit since the benchmark was run on this change :( - Francis > - are you using it now? If we could have some benchmarks on the latest > rebase that I think would be great. > > > - HBASE-13557 - special handling for system tables WALs - should we still > keep it targeted for 1.3? > - HBASE-13017 - keep table state in meta, this one doesn't look like it's > going to make it in > > As a new item on my list - I'm looking forward to see more of HBASE-15492 > (memory optimizations) subtasks to go in branch-1. > > Thanks! > Mikhail > > On Sun, Feb 28, 2016 at 10:53 AM, Andrew Purtell <andrew.purt...@gmail.com > > > wrote: > > > I'm starting a push at work to get us up on 1.2. Assuming that happens > > later this year I think that will be the end of my close attention to > 0.98. > > > > > On Feb 26, 2016, at 1:54 PM, Nick Dimiduk <ndimi...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 12:23 PM, Andrew Purtell <apurt...@apache.org> > > > wrote: > > > > > >> In the meantime those of us running HBase in production would benefit > > from > > >> fairly frequent minor releases. > > > > > > +1. Having to look back to 0.98 to get some new feature is problematic. > > > > > >> On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 9:50 AM, Elliott Clark <ecl...@apache.org> > > wrote: > > >> > > >>> I disagree. We have agreed that 2.0 will have a new assignement > > manager. > > >>> There's a lot of work that has been done on getting that in, so far > > there > > >>> are no benefits to the end user from all that work. We should stick > > with > > >>> the plan and release 2.0 when it's ready. > > >>> > > >>> On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 9:39 AM, Stephen Jiang < > > syuanjiang...@gmail.com> > > >>> wrote: > > >>> > > >>>> Thanks for Mikhail for taking the 1.3 RM role. Looks like we have a > > >> lot > > >>> of > > >>>> new things in 1.3 release. > > >>>> > > >>>> Based on the experience of 1.1 and 1.2 release, it takes a lot of > > >> efforts > > >>>> to get a stable minor release out. From this, I have my own 2-cents > > on > > >>> 1.4 > > >>>> release. The plan is to have 2.0 release during summer time of this > > >> year > > >>>> (yeah, *this year). * Given the limited time and resource, after > 1.3 > > >>>> release, instead of spending effort on 1.4 release, the community > > >> should > > >>>> focus on stabilizing master (or branch-2, not exist as of now) > branch > > >> and > > >>>> make 2.0 release a priority. 2.0 release would bring more values to > > >>>> customer & move towards maturity of HBASE product. > > >>>> > > >>>> Thanks > > >>>> Stephen > > >>>> > > >>>> On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 1:49 AM, Mikhail Antonov < > > olorinb...@gmail.com > > >>> > > >>>> wrote: > > >>>> > > >>>>> Created an umbrella jira for 1.3 release - HBASE-15341 > > >>>>> > > >>>>> So it looks like we may have 1.4 release before 2.0 is out? I tried > > >> to > > >>>> add > > >>>>> 1.4 version in jira so we can keep it in branch-1 poms but I > > >> couldn't - > > >>>>> looks like I don't have permissions? > > >>>>> > > >>>>> -Mikhail > > >>>>> > > >>>>> On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 3:52 PM, Andrew Purtell < > apurt...@apache.org > > >>> > > >>>>> wrote: > > >>>>> > > >>>>>> The guy we had looking at streaming replication moved on and > > >> there's > > >>> no > > >>>>>> immediate plans to take on the work, FWIW > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 3:33 PM, Matteo Bertozzi < > > >>>>> theo.berto...@gmail.com> > > >>>>>> wrote: > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>>> I was shooting for summer for hbase 2.0, the main problem is that > > >>>> there > > >>>>>> is > > >>>>>>> still no code for the new AM or for fs changes, which are the two > > >>>> that > > >>>>>> may > > >>>>>>> impact compatibility (working slowly on that). Streaming > > >>> replication > > >>>>> and > > >>>>>>> others seems compatible enough but no code there too. > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> Matteo > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 3:29 PM, Mikhail Antonov < > > >>>> olorinb...@gmail.com > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>>> wrote: > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> Agreed. I just meant - readiness of 2.0 is something affecting > > >>>>>> decisions > > >>>>>>> on > > >>>>>>>> whether or not to backport mobs to branch-1 (which is itself > > >>>> separate > > >>>>>>>> thread). > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> -Mikhail > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 3:27 PM, Sean Busbey < > > >>> bus...@cloudera.com> > > >>>>>>> wrote: > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 5:21 PM, Mikhail Antonov < > > >>>>>> olorinb...@gmail.com > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> wrote: > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>> - "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? > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> 2.0 readiness probably deserves its own [DISCUSS] thread, but > > >>>> we're > > >>>>>> now > > >>>>>>>>> past a year since the HBase 1.0.0 release, so I hope it's > > >> soon. > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> -- > > >>>>>>>>> Sean > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> -- > > >>>>>>>> Thanks, > > >>>>>>>> Michael Antonov > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> -- > > >>>>>> Best regards, > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> - Andy > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - > Piet > > >>>> Hein > > >>>>>> (via Tom White) > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> -- > > >>>>> Thanks, > > >>>>> Michael Antonov > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> -- > > >> Best regards, > > >> > > >> - Andy > > >> > > >> Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet > Hein > > >> (via Tom White) > > >> > > > > > > -- > Thanks, > Michael Antonov >
