On what, specifically? On Mon, Dec 2, 2019, 11:24 Misty Linville <[email protected]> wrote:
> Should the user list be allowed to weigh in? > > On Mon, Dec 2, 2019 at 7:33 AM Andrew Purtell <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > I think there is a consensus on moving the stable pointer, based on > > earlier discussion. What I would suggest is a separate thread to propose > > it, and if nobody objects, do it. > > > > > On Dec 2, 2019, at 5:14 AM, 张铎(Duo Zhang) <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > > +1. > > > > > > And I think it is time to move the stable pointer to 2.2.x? I know that > > > 2.2.x still has some bugs, especially on the procedure store, but > anyway, > > > we have HBCK2 to fix them. > > > > > > And for the current stable release line, 1.4.x, the assignment manager > > also > > > has bugs, as it is the reason why we introduced AMv2. > > > > > > So I do not think bug free is the 'must have' for a stable release > line. > > > > > > Jan Hentschel <[email protected]> 于2019年12月2日周一 > 下午4:57写道： > > > > > >> +1 > > >> > > >> From: Sakthi <[email protected]> > > >> Reply-To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> > > >> Date: Monday, December 2, 2019 at 3:32 AM > > >> To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> > > >> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] EOM branch-1.3 > > >> > > >> +1 > > >> > > >> On Sun, Dec 1, 2019 at 6:28 PM Andrew Purtell < > [email protected] > > >> <mailto:[email protected]>> > > >> wrote: > > >> > > >> +1 for EOL of 1.3. > > >> > > >> Onward to 1.6! > > >> > > >> > > >>> On Dec 1, 2019, at 5:38 PM, Sean Busbey <[email protected]<mailto: > > >> [email protected]>> wrote: > > >>> > > >>> Hi folks! > > >>> > > >>> It's been about a month since the last 1.3.z release came out. We've > > >>> been talking about EOM for branch-1.3 for about a year. Most > recently, > > >>> we had a growing consensus[1] to EOM after getting the 1.3.6 release > > >>> out with the fixes for Jackson in HBASE-22728 out. > > >>> > > >>> Looking at the things that have since landed in branch-1.3 and > nothing > > >>> looks critical (these are all Major or Minor)[2]: > > >>> > > >>> - HBASE-23149 hbase shouldPerformMajorCompaction logic is not correct > > >>> - HBASE-23185 High cpu usage because getTable()#put() gets config > > >>> value every time > > >>> - HBASE-23261 Region stuck in transition while splitting > > >>> - HBASE-18439 Subclasses of o.a.h.h.chaos.actions.Action all use the > > >>> same logger > > >>> - HBASE-23207 Log a region open journal > > >>> - HBASE-23250 Log message about CleanerChore delegate initialization > > >>> should be at INFO > > >>> > > >>> Someone on 1.3.6 can get all these same things fixed by upgrading to > > >>> our current stable release. > > >>> > > >>> Releases on 1.3.z started in 2017. The branch has only averaged ~2 > > >>> maintenance releases a year; I think reflecting a lack of community > > >>> interest in maintaining the branch. For comparison 1.4 started about > a > > >>> year later and has already had twice as many maintenance releases. > > >>> > > >>> - 1.3.0: 2017-01-16 > > >>> - 1.3.1: 2017-04-21 > > >>> - 1.3.2: 2018-03-07 > > >>> - 1.3.2.1: 2018-06-13 > > >>> - 1.3.3: 2018-12-21 > > >>> - 1.3.5: 2019-06-10 > > >>> - 1.3.6: 2019-10-20 > > >>> > > >>> Any objections to shutting branch-1.3 down? If folks show up down the > > >>> road and want to do the work of maintaining it for some reason, we > can > > >>> always spin it up again. > > >>> > > >>> [1]: > > >>> > > >>> There's more background if you search farther back, but most > recently: > > >>> > > >>> * "Considering immediate EOL of branch-1.3 and branch-1.4" > > >>> https://s.apache.org/f32d0 > > >>> * https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-22728 > > >>> * https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-22835 > > >>> * ANNOUNCE for 1.3.6 included a warning > > >>> "This is ought to be the last release in the 1.3 line unless > something > > >>> critical comes up within in the next month or so." > > >>> > > >>> [2]: > > >>> > > >>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/projects/HBASE/versions/12346250 > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >
