Pushed branch-2.1 at this commit. commit a86141b6252a433ff62f5c1979d7523031da0bf2 Author: zhangduo <zhang...@apache.org> Date: Thu Jun 21 10:14:57 2018 +0800
HBASE-20752 Make sure the regions are truly reopened after ReopenTableRegionsProcedure 2018-06-22 15:10 GMT+08:00 张铎(Duo Zhang) <palomino...@gmail.com>: > Hold on committing to branch-2. Will cut branch-2.1 soon. > > 2018-06-19 22:05 GMT+08:00 张铎(Duo Zhang) <palomino...@gmail.com>: > >> Moved a bunch of issues out of 2.1.0. You can add it back if you think >> this is important for 2.1.0 release but we need to be quick. Will cut >> branch-2.1 after finish the related issues around SCP and MRP, maybe end of >> this week. >> >> Thanks. >> >> 2018-06-13 15:00 GMT+08:00 张铎(Duo Zhang) <palomino...@gmail.com>: >> >>> I set HBASE-20708 as a blocker for 2.1.0 release, and I also think we >>> need to address HBASE-20706. Will keep working on it. >>> >>> 2018-06-13 14:11 GMT+08:00 Stack <st...@duboce.net>: >>> >>>> On Sun, Jun 3, 2018 at 8:54 PM 张铎(Duo Zhang) <palomino...@gmail.com> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> > What;s your plan sir? Branch branch-2.1 from branch-2.0? >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Dang. Its time to push out a new release -- it is > 6 weeks since 2.0.0 >>>> -- >>>> but I'll just call it 2.0.1. It has 70+ fixes in it which is an awful >>>> lot >>>> for a patch release (It is our first release after a major so we might >>>> allow ourselves some slack) but they are just bug fixes and some perf >>>> improvements; it doesn't feel substantial enough (yet) to claim 2.1.0. I >>>> can see 2.0.2, 2.0.3 coming at about same interval but again just bug >>>> fixes >>>> and perf: no new features. I relinquish any claim on 2.1.0. >>>> >>>> S >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> > 2018-06-04 11:50 GMT+08:00 Stack <st...@duboce.net>: >>>> > >>>> > > On Sun, Jun 3, 2018 at 5:36 PM, 张铎(Duo Zhang) < >>>> palomino...@gmail.com> >>>> > > wrote: >>>> > > >>>> > > > Will cut the 2.1 branch tomorrow if no objections. The unfinished >>>> > > features >>>> > > > will be disabled by default or purged from branch-2.1 and target >>>> to 2.2 >>>> > > > release. >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > I was thinking that the next release off branch-2.0 could be 2.1.0. >>>> It >>>> > has >>>> > > 70+ commits including a big boost in perf. It feels more like a >>>> minor >>>> > > release than it does a point release. >>>> > > >>>> > > Branch 3.0.0 rather than 2.1.0 Duo? >>>> > > >>>> > > S >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > > 2018-05-17 14:19 GMT+08:00 张铎(Duo Zhang) <palomino...@gmail.com>: >>>> > > > >>>> > > > > Plan to cut branch-2.1 at the end of May. Will consider the >>>> status of >>>> > > the >>>> > > > > new features at that time to determine what will be released >>>> with >>>> > 2.1.x >>>> > > > > release line. >>>> > > > > >>>> > > > > 2018-05-08 10:16 GMT+08:00 Josh Elser <els...@apache.org>: >>>> > > > > >>>> > > > >> Big big big +1 >>>> > > > >> >>>> > > > >> (Came in to say just this but you beat me to it :D) >>>> > > > >> >>>> > > > >> >>>> > > > >> On 5/7/18 12:07 AM, 张铎(Duo Zhang) wrote: >>>> > > > >> >>>> > > > >>> Let's do big features in 3.0.0 only. >>>> > > > >>> >>>> > > > >>> Ideally there will no big new features for a minor release, >>>> so that >>>> > > we >>>> > > > >>> can >>>> > > > >>> move the stable pointer to newer minor versions quickly and >>>> retire >>>> > > the >>>> > > > >>> old >>>> > > > >>> branches. It will be a nightmare if we have lots of active >>>> minor >>>> > > > release >>>> > > > >>> lines... >>>> > > > >>> >>>> > > > >>> 2018-05-07 14:53 GMT+08:00 Guanghao Zhang <zghao...@gmail.com >>>> >: >>>> > > > >>> >>>> > > > >>> Why 2.1 doesn't contatin synchronous replication? This can be >>>> a >>>> > > > >>>> experiment >>>> > > > >>>> feature in 2.1? >>>> > > > >>>> >>>> > > > >>>> 2018-05-07 14:41 GMT+08:00 张铎(Duo Zhang) < >>>> palomino...@gmail.com>: >>>> > > > >>>> >>>> > > > >>>> 2018-05-07 14:38 GMT+08:00 Chia-Ping Tsai < >>>> chia7...@apache.org>: >>>> > > > >>>>> >>>> > > > >>>>> As I volunteered to be the release manager for the 2.1 >>>> release >>>> > line >>>> > > > >>>>>>> >>>> > > > >>>>>> so >>>> > > > >>>> >>>> > > > >>>>> let >>>> > > > >>>>>> >>>> > > > >>>>>>> me bring this up. >>>> > > > >>>>>>> >>>> > > > >>>>>> +1 to Duo be RM of 2.1 release. >>>> > > > >>>>>> >>>> > > > >>>>>> disabled from 2.0.0 release, for example, serial >>>> replication, >>>> > and >>>> > > in >>>> > > > >>>>>>> >>>> > > > >>>>>> memory compaction >>>> > > > >>>>>> IIRC, in memory compaction is enabled in 2.0 and the >>>> default >>>> > > policy >>>> > > > is >>>> > > > >>>>>> BASIC. (please correct me if I misunderstand something.) >>>> > > > >>>>>> >>>> > > > >>>>>> We disabled it by default in the end due to some >>>> performance >>>> > > > issues... >>>> > > > >>>>> >>>> > > > >>>>> >>>> > > > >>>>>> For the 2.1 release line, I would like to define it as the >>>> > 'real' >>>> > > > 2.x >>>> > > > >>>>>>> >>>> > > > >>>>>> Seems the release date between 2.0 and 2.1 will be very >>>> close. >>>> > Is >>>> > > it >>>> > > > >>>>>> related to our new release plan? (IIRC, Andrew had >>>> suggested >>>> > some >>>> > > > >>>>>> great >>>> > > > >>>>>> release plan based time. But I fail to find the thread...) >>>> > > > >>>>>> >>>> > > > >>>>>> And for the 3.0.0 release, I think the new features should >>>> be >>>> > > > decided >>>> > > > >>>>>>> >>>> > > > >>>>>> ASAP. >>>> > > > >>>>>> >>>> > > > >>>>>>> We need to avoid the same thing happens again, i.e, >>>> spending 2 >>>> > > > years >>>> > > > >>>>>>> >>>> > > > >>>>>> to >>>> > > > >>>> >>>> > > > >>>>> release a major version... >>>> > > > >>>>>>> >>>> > > > >>>>>> agreed! >>>> > > > >>>>>> >>>> > > > >>>>>> On 2018/05/07 00:52:07, 张铎(Duo Zhang) < >>>> palomino...@gmail.com> >>>> > > > wrote: >>>> > > > >>>>>> >>>> > > > >>>>>>> As I volunteered to be the release manager for the 2.1 >>>> release >>>> > > line >>>> > > > >>>>>>> >>>> > > > >>>>>> so >>>> > > > >>>> >>>> > > > >>>>> let >>>> > > > >>>>>> >>>> > > > >>>>>>> me bring this up. >>>> > > > >>>>>>> >>>> > > > >>>>>>> For the 2.1 release line, I would like to define it as the >>>> > 'real' >>>> > > > 2.x >>>> > > > >>>>>>> version of HBase. It should include the features which are >>>> > > reverted >>>> > > > >>>>>>> >>>> > > > >>>>>> or >>>> > > > >>>> >>>> > > > >>>>> disabled from 2.0.0 release, for example, serial >>>> replication, and >>>> > > in >>>> > > > >>>>>>> >>>> > > > >>>>>> memory >>>> > > > >>>>>> >>>> > > > >>>>>>> compaction. And also, the performance issues. And no more >>>> new >>>> > > > >>>>>>> >>>> > > > >>>>>> features. >>>> > > > >>>> >>>> > > > >>>>> If >>>> > > > >>>>>> >>>> > > > >>>>>>> no objections, I will start the release work soon. >>>> > > > >>>>>>> >>>> > > > >>>>>>> And for the 3.0.0 release, I think the new features >>>> should be >>>> > > > decided >>>> > > > >>>>>>> >>>> > > > >>>>>> ASAP. >>>> > > > >>>>>> >>>> > > > >>>>>>> We need to avoid the same thing happens again, i.e, >>>> spending 2 >>>> > > > years >>>> > > > >>>>>>> >>>> > > > >>>>>> to >>>> > > > >>>> >>>> > > > >>>>> release a major version... >>>> > > > >>>>>>> >>>> > > > >>>>>>> For now, the new features >>>> > > > >>>>>>> Synchronous replication >>>> > > > >>>>>>> CCSMap >>>> > > > >>>>>>> Backup >>>> > > > >>>>>>> Spark connector(is it still active?) >>>> > > > >>>>>>> >>>> > > > >>>>>>> And I suggest that we include this: >>>> > > > >>>>>>> The read path refactoring(HBASE-20525) >>>> > > > >>>>>>> >>>> > > > >>>>>>> Suggestions are welcomed. >>>> > > > >>>>>>> >>>> > > > >>>>>>> Thanks. >>>> > > > >>>>>>> >>>> > > > >>>>>>> >>>> > > > >>>>>> >>>> > > > >>>>> >>>> > > > >>>> >>>> > > > >>> >>>> > > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > >>>> > >>>> >>> >>> >> >