Would they do that before or after we designate it stable? Asking, not trying to be difficult. Kind of a chicken and egg problem?
It would be fine I think to consider reported experience when and if it happens but can't be primary criteria because it has nothing directly to do with our PMC or project. We need a criteria we as project and PMC can achieve and implement effectively, and IMHO "one of our project devs has it running" does not meet that requirement, because this depends on third party organizations (a dev's employer, and such) and idiosyncratic criteria. > On Mar 18, 2021, at 12:47 PM, Stack <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Thu, Mar 18, 2021 at 11:55 AM Andrew Purtell <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> And how would we know we have one? We don't track usage telemetry. >> >> > Someone of us w/ standing volunteers that they have made the move (was what > I was thinking). > S > > > > >> >>>> On Mar 18, 2021, at 11:29 AM, Stack <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> On Wed, Mar 17, 2021 at 1:49 PM Andrew Purtell <[email protected]> >> wrote: >>> >>>> I would like to propose we update the 'stable' release pointer, >> currently >>>> pointing at 2.3.4, to 2.4.2. >>>> >>>> In my testing with aggressive chaos and ITBLL (but in, unfortunately, >> due >>>> to resource constraints, in small cluster settings of approximately 10 >>>> nodes) 2.4.2 is very stable. >>>> >>>> Our sister project Phoenix has updated their build system to support >>>> building against 2.4.1 and later, and the stability of their unit and >>>> integration test suite is not impacted by any known HBase issue. >>>> >>>> If there is other criteria that should be considered, I'd like for us to >>>> discuss it. Does there need to be public acknowledgement of a production >>>> user? At scale? (How would we know?) Would you like me to attempt an >>>> at-scale test? On the order of 100 nodes might be possible? If so, what >>>> should be the test scenario and criteria for success? What distinguishes >>>> 2.3.x (2.3.4) from 2.4.x (2.4.2) at this point? What would be the >> area(s) >>>> of concern with respect to moving the stable pointer forward? >>>> >>>> >>> I suggest a happy production deploy as a prerequisite to moving the >> pointer. >>> S >>> >>> >>> >>>> -- >>>> Best regards, >>>> Andrew >>>> >>>> Words like orphans lost among the crosstalk, meaning torn from truth's >>>> decrepit hands >>>> - A23, Crosstalk >>>> >>
