+1 to EOL 0.98. Thanks Andrew for all the work maintaining it!
-Mikhail On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 12:10 PM, Dima Spivak <dimaspi...@apache.org> wrote: > +1 > > -Dima > > On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 12:08 PM, Stack <st...@duboce.net> wrote: > > > I agree we should EOL 0.98. > > St.Ack > > > > On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 11:43 AM, Andrew Purtell <apurt...@apache.org> > > wrote: > > > > > Please speak up if it is incorrect to interpret the lack of responses > as > > > indicating consensus on declaring 0.98 EOL. > > > > > > I believe we should declare 0.98 EOL. > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 6:56 AM, Sean Busbey <bus...@apache.org> > wrote: > > > > > > > Hi Folks! > > > > > > > > Back in January our Andrew Purtell stepped down as the release > > > > manager for the 0.98 release line. > > > > > > > > On the resultant dev@hbase thread[1] folks seemed largely in favor > of > > > > declaring end-of-maintenance for the 0.98 line. > > > > > > > > Now that it's been a couple of months, does anyone have concerns > about > > > > pushing forward on that? > > > > > > > > Do folks who listen on user@hbase but not dev@hbase have any > concerns? > > > > > > > > As with any end-of-maintenance branch, the PMC would consider on a > > > > case-by-case basis doing a future release of the branch should a > > > > critical security vulnerability show up. > > > > > > > > > > > > [1]: https://s.apache.org/DjCi > > > > > > > > -busbey > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > Best regards, > > > > > > - Andy > > > > > > If you are given a choice, you believe you have acted freely. - Raymond > > > Teller (via Peter Watts) > > > > > > -- Thanks, Michael Antonov
