After HBASE-16179 gets in, we can get wider feedback from interested users in using hbase-spark module.
We would then be able to find missing pieces. > On Jan 14, 2017, at 12:30 PM, Eric Charles <e...@apache.org> wrote: > > I read "3.3 hbase-spark STATUS: Needs work. No one on it at mo. Doc. is just > wrong. What is there is dodgy. Could get punted." > > Unit tests are working and base functionality is there. Besides the doc and > compilation against spark-2 (and scala-2.11), what else do you want to see? > > >> On 14/01/17 10:29, Ted Yu wrote: >> For 3.3, hbase-spark module, there is HBASE-16179 which enables support for >> Spark 2.0 >> It needs some review. >> >> Cheers >> >>> On Jan 13, 2017, at 11:25 PM, Stack <st...@duboce.net> wrote: >>> >>> On Sat, Dec 31, 2016 at 12:16 PM, Stephen Jiang <syuanjiang...@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Hello, Andrew, I was a helper on Matteo so that we can help each other >>>> while we are focusing on the new Assignment Manager work. Now he is not >>>> available (at least in the next few months). I have to be more focused on >>>> the new AM work; plus other work in my company; it would be too much for me >>>> to 2.0 RM alone. I am happy someone would help to take primary 2.0 RM role >>>> while I am still help to make this 2.0 release smooth. >>> (I could help out Stephen. We could co-RM?) >>> >>> >>>> For branch-2, I think it is too early to cut it, as we still have a lot of >>>> moving parts and on-going project that needs to be part of 2.0. For >>>> example, the mentioned new AM (and other projects, such as HBASE-14414, >>>> HBASE-15179, HBASE-14070, HBASE-14850, HBASE-16833, HBASE-15531, just name >>>> a few). Cutting branch now would add burden to complete those projects. >>> Agree with Stephen. A bunch of stuff is half-baked so a '2.0.0' now would >>> be all loose ends and it'd make for a messy narrative. >>> >>> I started a doc listing state of 2.0.0: >>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1WCsVlnHjJeKUcl7wHwqb4z9iEu_ktczrlKHK8N4SZzs/edit?usp=sharing >>> >>> In the doc I made an estimate of what the community considers core 2.0.0 >>> items based in part off old lists and after survey of current state of >>> JIRA. The doc is open for comment. Please chime in if I am off or if I am >>> missing something that should be included. I also make a rough estimate on >>> state of each core item. >>> >>> I intend to keep up this macro-view doc as we progress on 2.0.0 with >>> reflection where pertinent in JIRA . Suggest we branch only when code >>> compete on the core set most of which are complete or near-so. >>> End-of-February should be time enough (First 2.0.0 RC in at the start of >>> May?). >>> >>> Thanks, >>> St.Ack >>> >>> >>> >>>> thanks >>>> Stephen >>>> >>>> On Sat, Dec 31, 2016 at 10:54 AM, Andrew Purtell <andrew.purt...@gmail.com >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hi all, >>>>> >>>>> I've heard a rumor the co-RM situation with 2.0 may have changed. Can we >>>>> get an update from co-RMs Matteo and Steven on their availability and >>>>> interest in continuing in this role? >>>>> >>>>> To assist in moving 2.0 forward I intend to branch branch-2 from master >>>>> next week. Unless there is an objection I will take this action under >>>>> assumption of lazy consensus. Master branch will be renumbered to >>>>> 3.0.0-SNAPSHOT. Once we have a branch-2 I will immediately begin scale >>>>> tests and stabilization (via bug fixes or reverts of unfinished work) and >>>>> invite interested collaborators to do the same. >>>>
