Home | About | Sematext search-lucene.com search-hadoop.com
 Search Hadoop and all its subprojects:

Switch to Threaded View
HBase >> mail # dev >> Branching for 0.98


Copy link to this message
-
Re: Branching for 0.98
Earlier discussion suggested people wanted 0.98 to come quickly after 0.96.
I'm fine with that, and am proceeding on that understanding. A longer span,
say December, or let's just say no later than +3 months from 0.96.0, I also
think makes sense. No question 0.98 is a stepping stone to 1.0, and I have
the sense we want to get to 1.0 soon.

What do people prefer? It is not my intent to impose an arbitrary timetable.

> Will 96 and 98 be compatible (rolling upgrade, etc.)?

Yes.

> If yes, should the features be included in 96 dot releases instead.

Some things slated for 0.98 were not included in 0.96 and my understanding
is they will not go in there, but I could easily be mistaken.

On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 3:04 PM, Sergey Shelukhin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:

> The question is, why is it coming so fast after 96? How is that explained
> to the users, that's what I meant by "official message". The new features
> could come on normal cadence (December-ish?).
> If these features are stable, is 98 is just a "better 96"? Why would anyone
> use 96 then when 98 is coming out immediately? If we are doing that we
> might as well delay 96 to get them instead of doing another major release
> in a month (wearing the vendor-independent hat).
> Will 96 and 98 be compatible (rolling upgrade, etc.)? If yes, should the
> features be included in 96 dot releases instead. If no 96 becomes a dead
> release, 2 upgrades within 6 weeks to go 94 to latest stable version.
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 2:30 PM, Andrew Purtell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> > Procedurally, to catch changes on the way to 1.0 that did not land in
> 0.96
> > - API cleanups (esp. with comparators), replacement of KeyValue with
> Cell,
> > inline Cell tags, HFile V3.
> >
> > Not sure there is any "official message". What should it be do you think?
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 1:45 PM, Sergey Shelukhin <
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > >wrote:
> >
> > > What is the "official message"/purpose of 98? I was meaning to ask for
> > some
> > > time, this thread might be as good a place as any.
> > > In a month after 96 release, people might not have even upgraded from
> 94
> > to
> > > 96 yet, now there's suddenly 98.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 11:25 AM, Andrew Purtell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > >wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi all,
> > > >
> > > > Unless there are concerns, I would like to set the date for branching
> > > 0.98
> > > > out from trunk at one month post the release date of 0.96.0. A RC can
> > be
> > > > expected to follow within days, depending on the state of unit tests,
> > the
> > > > availability of new 0.96 -> 0.98 upgrade compatibility testing
> > developed
> > > > for the release, and the results of that compatibility testing.
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Best regards,
> > > >
> > > >    - Andy
> > > >
> > > > Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet
> > Hein
> > > > (via Tom White)
> > > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE
> > > NOTICE: This message is intended for the use of the individual or
> entity
> > to
> > > which it is addressed and may contain information that is confidential,
> > > privileged and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the
> reader
> > > of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified
> > that
> > > any printing, copying, dissemination, distribution, disclosure or
> > > forwarding of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have
> > > received this communication in error, please contact the sender
> > immediately
> > > and delete it from your system. Thank You.
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Best regards,
> >
> >    - Andy
> >
> > Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet Hein
> > (via Tom White)
> >
>
> --
> CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE
> NOTICE: This message is intended for the use of the individual or entity to
> which it is addressed and may contain information that is confidential,
> privileged and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader

Best regards,

   - Andy

Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet Hein
(via Tom White)