Oh, typo, 'the make_rc.sh can do everything for you' 张铎(Duo Zhang) <palomino...@gmail.com> 于2018年11月9日周五 上午10:09写道：
> I think for the 2.x release the problem is that we are still busy on > making the code stable, or speak more clearly, to make the procedure v2 > framework stable... And another big problem is lacking of HBCK2 support. > These things are all big issues which prevent people to upgrade to 2.x. > > Once these things are done, I think a monthly release will not be a big > problem to the RMs. Just simply run an ITBLL(for now it is not easy to get > a successful run and then we need to find out why...), and then the > make_rc.sh can not everything for you... > > Sean Busbey <bus...@apache.org> 于2018年11月9日周五 上午9:45写道： > >> I think it just shifts the RM burden, no? Like instead of watching e.g. >> branch-2.2 I instead need to watch branch-2. >> >> On Thu, Nov 8, 2018, 17:28 Josh Elser <els...@apache.org wrote: >> >> > I think what I'd be concerned about WRT time-based releases is the >> > burden on RM to keep the branch in a good state. Perhaps we need to not >> > push that onto an RM and do better about sharing that load (looking in >> > the mirror). >> > >> > However, I do like time-based releases as a means to avoid "hurt >> > feelings" (e.g. the personal ties of a developer to a feature. "The >> > release goes out on zzzz/yy/xx, this feature is not yet ready, can go >> > out one month later.." etc) >> > >> > On 11/7/18 2:31 PM, Sean Busbey wrote: >> > > Hi folks! >> > > >> > > Some time ago we talked about trying to get back on track for a more >> > > regular cadence of minor releases rather than maintenance releases >> > > (like how we did back pre-1.0). That never quite worked out for the >> > > HBase 1.y line, but is still something we could make happen for HBase >> > > 2. >> > > >> > > We're coming up on 4 months since the 2.1 release line started. ATM >> > > there are 63 issues in JIRA that claim to be in 2.2.0 and not in any >> > > 2.1.z version[1]. >> > > >> > > The main argument against starting to do a 2.2.0 release is that >> > > nothing springs out of that list as a "feature" that would entice >> > > users to upgrade. Waiting for these kinds of selling points to drive a >> > > release is commonly referred to as "feature based releases." I think >> > > it would be fair to characterize the HBase 2.0 release as feature >> > > based centered on AMv2. >> > > >> > > An alternative to feature based releases is date based releases where >> > > we decide that e.g. we'll have a minor release each month regardless >> > > of how much is included in it. This is sometimes also called "train >> > > releases" as an analogy to how trains leave a station on a set >> > > schedule without regard to which individual passengers are ready. Just >> > > as you'd catch the next scheduled train if you miss-timed your >> > > arrival, fixes or features that aren't ready just go in the next >> > > regular release. >> > > >> > > Personally, I really like the idea of doing date based releases for >> > > minor releases with maintenance releases essentially only happening on >> > > whatever our "stable" designator points at. It would mean those who >> > > don't want the risk and benefits of our current release-ready work >> > > could stay on a defined path while we could move away from maintaining >> > > a ton of branches, some of which don't even see releases (currently ~3 >> > > that are > 3 months since a release). If some folks had a specific >> > > need for a different minor release line and were willing to do the >> > > backport and RM work for that line, they'd of course be free to do so. >> > > >> > > I know there are some current unknowns around 2.2 specifically. I >> > > think stack mentioned to me that there's an upgrade consideration that >> > > we need to hammer out since I don't see anything specific to 2.2 in >> > > the "Upgrade Paths" section of the ref guide right now. While I am >> > > interested in getting 2.2 going specifically, I'd like to make sure we >> > > address the general topic of regularly getting new minor releases out. >> > > If we already had an expectation that there'd be a minor release every >> > > e.g. month or 2 months then I expect whatever upgrade issue would have >> > > been addressed as a part of the change that caused it going in. >> > > >> > > What do folks think? >> > > >> > > [1]: >> > > https://s.apache.org/AAma >> > > >> > >> >
