Is there anything I can do to help? Perhaps we can divide and conquer on those patches. I think we have some bandwidth over where I work to help, including some of my own time. Ping me offlist if this is of interest.
On Mon, Dec 9, 2019 at 6:27 PM Francis Liu <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Andy, > > I see, I chimed in because the previous conversation sounded like 1.3 was > just missing an RM and non-dev 1.3 users. I understand, I wouldn't want to > be the only reason 1.3 is kept alive. > > We have a few patches we need to push upstream before we can get off of > 1.3. We are working on it but it'll take some time. > > Thanks, > Francis > > > > > > On Thu, Dec 5, 2019 at 7:09 PM Andrew Purtell <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Hey Francis, > > > > What is preventing an upgrade to 1.4? Are there specific concerns > > remaining? It's been out there for a long time now, and bug fixed through > > 12 releases. Feel free to contact me offlist if you prefer, no problem. > > > > Committers are voting to EOM 1.3 with their git clients already. It is > > spotty if changes make it that far back even when they should. See extra > > work the RM had to do for the last 1.3 release to compare history and > port > > back stuff. Nothing prevents you or someone else from continuing to make > > 1.3 releases but the writing is on the wall here. > > > > > > > > On Thu, Dec 5, 2019 at 6:52 PM Francis Christopher Liu < > > [email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > Hi Guys, > > > > > > We are still on 1.3 so it would be in our interest if I can continue to > > > rollout 1.3.z releases. Having said that it is the oldest release > branch > > > and I understand the effort it takes to maintain another branch hence I > > > didn't push for it unless there are other reasons than our own for > > keeping > > > it going. If it works for you guys I can send an email to the user list > > to > > > see if that criteria is met? > > > > > > Also I was wondering if retired does that prevent us from rolling out > > > releases with critical/needed fixes? > > > > > > Thanks, > > > Francis > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Dec 3, 2019 at 3:27 AM Sean Busbey <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > If it would change anyone's willingness to maintain the branch, then > I > > > > encourage them to go ask about the need on user@hbase. > > > > > > > > AFAIK in the year since we started talking about shutting down > > branch-1.3 > > > > no committer or PMC has expressed that their interest would change if > > > > someone on user@hbase felt stuck on 1.3.z. > > > > > > > > Also worth noting that in the month since the 1.3.6 announcement went > > out > > > > noone has showed up to say they can't move off of the release line. > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Dec 2, 2019, 22:53 Andrew Purtell <[email protected]> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > And if a non dev says they won’t move off 1.3? Will it change any > > > > > committer or PMC minds on actually continuing to do 1.3 releases? > If > > > not > > > > I > > > > > think we have to call it for lack of interest and bandwidth. > > > > > > > > > > 1.4 is a functional superset of 1.3 and the current stable line > > anyway. > > > > > Seems little reason not to upgrade save inertia or risk aversion. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Dec 2, 2019, at 5:43 PM, Sean Busbey <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Anyone who wants branch-1.3 to keep having releases has to be > > > willing > > > > > > to volunteer to maintain it. If the note in the 1.3.6 release > > wasn't > > > > > > sufficient motivation to get them to show up on dev@hbase to do > > so, > > > I > > > > > > could put a more explicit mention of it in the EOM message. We'd > > need > > > > > > to come up with some phrasing that didn't leave the status of the > > > > > > release line ambiguous though. > > > > > > > > > > > > For reference, these are the last two EOM announcements we did: > > > > > > > > > > > > * 2.0.z in Sep 2019: https://s.apache.org/slgsa > > > > > > * 1.2.z in Jun 2019: https://s.apache.org/g8lnu > > > > > > > > > > > > 2.0 and 1.3 were never a release line with the "stable" marker on > > it. > > > > > > 1.2 was the stable release line prior to 1.4. > > > > > > > > > > > >> On Mon, Dec 2, 2019 at 1:58 PM Misty Linville <[email protected] > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > >> > > > > > >> Whether any non-dev users are unable to move off 1.3, I suppose. > > > > > >> > > > > > >>> On Mon, Dec 2, 2019 at 11:04 AM Sean Busbey <[email protected] > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> 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 > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Best regards, > > Andrew > > > > Words like orphans lost among the crosstalk, meaning torn from truth's > > decrepit hands > > - A23, Crosstalk > > > -- Best regards, Andrew Words like orphans lost among the crosstalk, meaning torn from truth's decrepit hands - A23, Crosstalk
