Re: [DISCUSS] Status of the 0.98 release line

[Yu Li]

+1 to EOL.

Thanks Andrew for all the great RM work! Won't forget the days 0.98
accompanied us in production (smile).

Best Regards,
Yu

On 11 April 2017 at 03:42, Gary Helmling  wrote:

> +1 to EOL, and thanks to Andrew for all of the RM'ing.
>
> On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 12:27 PM Ted Yu  wrote:
>
> > +1
> >
> > Andrew has done tremendous work.
> >
> > On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 12:17 PM, Mikhail Antonov 
> > wrote:
> >
> > > +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 
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > +1
> > > >
> > > > -Dima
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 12:08 PM, Stack  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 
> > > > 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
> > >
> >
>

Re: [DISCUSS] Status of the 0.98 release line

[Gary Helmling]

+1 to EOL, and thanks to Andrew for all of the RM'ing.

On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 12:27 PM Ted Yu  wrote:

> +1
>
> Andrew has done tremendous work.
>
> On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 12:17 PM, Mikhail Antonov 
> wrote:
>
> > +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 
> > wrote:
> >
> > > +1
> > >
> > > -Dima
> > >
> > > On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 12:08 PM, Stack  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 
> > > 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
> >
>

Re: [DISCUSS] Status of the 0.98 release line

[Ted Yu]

+1

Andrew has done tremendous work.

On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 12:17 PM, Mikhail Antonov 
wrote:

> +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 
> wrote:
>
> > +1
> >
> > -Dima
> >
> > On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 12:08 PM, Stack  wrote:
> >
> > > I agree we should EOL 0.98.
> > > St.Ack
> > >
> > > On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 11:43 AM, Andrew Purtell 
> > > 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 
> > 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
>

Re: [DISCUSS] Status of the 0.98 release line

[Mikhail Antonov]

+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  wrote:

> +1
>
> -Dima
>
> On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 12:08 PM, Stack  wrote:
>
> > I agree we should EOL 0.98.
> > St.Ack
> >
> > On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 11:43 AM, Andrew Purtell 
> > 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 
> 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

Re: [DISCUSS] Status of the 0.98 release line

[Dima Spivak]

+1

-Dima

On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 12:08 PM, Stack  wrote:

> I agree we should EOL 0.98.
> St.Ack
>
> On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 11:43 AM, Andrew Purtell 
> 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  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)
> >
>

Re: [DISCUSS] Status of the 0.98 release line

[Stack]

I agree we should EOL 0.98.
St.Ack

On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 11:43 AM, Andrew Purtell 
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  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)
>

Re: [DISCUSS] Status of the 0.98 release line

[Andrew Purtell]

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  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)

[DISCUSS] Status of the 0.98 release line

[Sean Busbey]

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