There are 118 JIRAs targeting 0.96 specifically. 3 blockers, 10 criticals.
Snapshots will be merged in soon. PBing RPC and persistence is well along
but there are 5945, 6521, 7233, 7448 and others due before release could be
considered. The work is important and as a consequence 0.96 will still need
a few months to come together.

That said, I think we should make up a list of what people want to see in,
and what could/should be excluded after we find that consensus.

I wonder if we might be able to start fielding RCs in the second quarter of
2013 sometime. I think it will still take some time to bake beyond that. I
might be able to get some time on a 1000 node testbed, so would expect a
bunch of issues to fall out of that.

--
Best regards,

   - Andy

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

Thanks for doing the below Andrew.

I was going to write something to try and rally folks around a 0.96
release.  I see loads of work afoot.  I am not sure what percentage can be
judged advancing the 0.96RC cause.

See below.

On Tue, Jan 8, 2013 at 9:51 AM, Andrew Purtell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> There are 118 JIRAs targeting 0.96 specifically. 3 blockers, 10 criticals.
>
As I see it, closing above is all that stands in the way of our branching.
 I see different numbers to you if I look on this page [1] (I see many more
issues than you count).

A while back after survey [3], here is what we said would be in 0.96 (You
can see the summary when you list 'versions' [2] in JIRA): "....you will
have to start and stop your cluster bringing it up on 0.96.0. 0.96.0 will
require Hadoop 1.0.0 at least. It will be supported on Hadoop 2.0.0 too.
0.96.0 will be all protobufs all the time; all of its serializations to
zookeeper, to the filesystem, and over rpc will be protobufs. It runs on
jdk7. Metrics will be edited and converted to use Hadoop Metrics2. A
preview of HBase Snapshots and PrefixTreeCompression."

Not mentioned but which will be immediately apparent when 0.96 comes up
will be new UI (smile), Jimmy et als AssignmentManager cleanup, Nicolas and
company's MTTR work -- the list is long.

> Snapshots will be merged in soon. PBing RPC and persistence is well along
> but there are 5945, 6521, 7233, 7448 and others due before release could be
> considered. The work is important and as a consequence 0.96 will still need
> a few months to come together.
>
>
Yeah, these are significant issues but they are being worked on actively at
the moment.

I wish it wasn't months.  It is not good for the project that so much time
has elapsed between major releases.

> That said, I think we should make up a list of what people want to see in,
> and what could/should be excluded after we find that consensus.
>
>
High-level, we have had this discussion IMO ([3]).  Would you like to do it
again Andrew?

Otherwise, I think folks need to bubble up critical issues (or strike them
down) and if any controversial, lets discuss them?
> I wonder if we might be able to start fielding RCs in the second quarter of
> 2013 sometime. I think it will still take some time to bake beyond that. I
> might be able to get some time on a 1000 node testbed, so would expect a
> bunch of issues to fall out of that.
>

I have a bet with JD on when 0.96 will go out.  Going by the timeline you
sling above, it looks like I am going to lose my bet.

Good on you Andrew,
St.Ack
1.
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE/fixforversion/12320040#selectedTab=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.project%3Aversion-issues-panel
2.
https://issues.apache.org/jira/plugins/servlet/project-config/HBASE/versions

3. http://search-hadoop.com/m/HOcsdhMt3B1/0.96&subj=0+96+0

On Tue, Jan 8, 2013 at 10:21 AM, Stack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> > That said, I think we should make up a list of what people want to see
> in,
> > and what could/should be excluded after we find that consensus.
> >
> >
> High-level, we have had this discussion IMO ([3]).  Would you like to do it
> again Andrew?
>
> Otherwise, I think folks need to bubble up critical issues (or strike them
> down) and if any controversial, lets discuss them?
>

Some time has elapsed since that discussion, I think we should do it again.

For example, the notion of running on JDK 7 is new, and depends on other
communities because quite a bit seems broken on JDK 7 so I hear. The creep
of "-Djava.net.preferIPv4=true" among Hadoop ecosystem projects is also a
concern, and it bothers me that HDFS tests seem DOA without it on my dev
box, so this also isn't something we are going to be able to solve entirely
on our own. So while I think these are serious concerns, I have mixed
feelings about them being prerequisites for a 0.96 release.

A bunch of hard thoughtful intermingled work is underway in RPC and HFile
and other places, so that we only need to do a "singularity" once. We
should do a feature based release for this, not a time based one, is my
opinion. As for everything else, setting a target and seeing what falls in
or out based on that is worth doing.

--
Best regards,

   - Andy

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

On Tue, Jan 8, 2013 at 10:32 AM, Andrew Purtell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Some time has elapsed since that discussion, I think we should do it again.
>
>
Go for it Andrew.  Would suggest you tag it on to the tail of the old
discussion or at least reference the old in your setup.
> For example, the notion of running on JDK 7 is new, and depends on other
> communities because quite a bit seems broken on JDK 7 so I hear. The creep
> of "-Djava.net.preferIPv4=true" among Hadoop ecosystem projects is also a
> concern, and it bothers me that HDFS tests seem DOA without it on my dev
> box, so this also isn't something we are going to be able to solve entirely
> on our own. So while I think these are serious concerns, I have mixed
> feelings about them being prerequisites for a 0.96 release.
>
>
Agreed.

> A bunch of hard thoughtful intermingled work is underway in RPC and HFile
> and other places, so that we only need to do a "singularity" once. We
> should do a feature based release for this, not a time based one, is my
> opinion. As for everything else, setting a target and seeing what falls in
> or out based on that is worth doing.
>
>
You call it a 'feature release'.  I see it as we can't release until pb'ing
is done (and, pb'ing can't make hbase N times slower than it was previously
-- smile).

St.Ack

bq. depends on other communities because quite a bit seems broken on JDK 7
so I hear

I have been running tests using 1.6.0_37 for trunk. Tests run smoothly so
far.

FYI

On Tue, Jan 8, 2013 at 10:32 AM, Andrew Purtell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> On Tue, Jan 8, 2013 at 10:21 AM, Stack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > That said, I think we should make up a list of what people want to see
> > in,
> > > and what could/should be excluded after we find that consensus.
> > >
> > >
> > High-level, we have had this discussion IMO ([3]).  Would you like to do
> it
> > again Andrew?
> >
> > Otherwise, I think folks need to bubble up critical issues (or strike
> them
> > down) and if any controversial, lets discuss them?
> >
>
> Some time has elapsed since that discussion, I think we should do it again.
>
> For example, the notion of running on JDK 7 is new, and depends on other
> communities because quite a bit seems broken on JDK 7 so I hear. The creep
> of "-Djava.net.preferIPv4=true" among Hadoop ecosystem projects is also a
> concern, and it bothers me that HDFS tests seem DOA without it on my dev
> box, so this also isn't something we are going to be able to solve entirely
> on our own. So while I think these are serious concerns, I have mixed
> feelings about them being prerequisites for a 0.96 release.
>
> A bunch of hard thoughtful intermingled work is underway in RPC and HFile
> and other places, so that we only need to do a "singularity" once. We
> should do a feature based release for this, not a time based one, is my
> opinion. As for everything else, setting a target and seeing what falls in
> or out based on that is worth doing.
>
> --
> Best regards,
>
>    - Andy
>
> Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet Hein
> (via Tom White)
>

What do these two things have to do with each other?

On Tuesday, January 8, 2013, Ted Yu wrote:

> bq. depends on other communities because quite a bit seems broken on JDK 7
> so I hear
>
> I have been running tests using 1.6.0_37 for trunk. Tests run smoothly so
> far.
>
> FYI
>
> On Tue, Jan 8, 2013 at 10:32 AM, Andrew Purtell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]<javascript:;>>
> wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Jan 8, 2013 at 10:21 AM, Stack <[EMAIL PROTECTED] <javascript:;>>
> wrote:
> >
> > > > That said, I think we should make up a list of what people want to
> see
> > > in,
> > > > and what could/should be excluded after we find that consensus.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > High-level, we have had this discussion IMO ([3]).  Would you like to
> do
> > it
> > > again Andrew?
> > >
> > > Otherwise, I think folks need to bubble up critical issues (or strike
> > them
> > > down) and if any controversial, lets discuss them?
> > >
> >
> > Some time has elapsed since that discussion, I think we should do it
> again.
> >
> > For example, the notion of running on JDK 7 is new, and depends on other
> > communities because quite a bit seems broken on JDK 7 so I hear. The
> creep
> > of "-Djava.net.preferIPv4=true" among Hadoop ecosystem projects is also a
> > concern, and it bothers me that HDFS tests seem DOA without it on my dev
> > box, so this also isn't something we are going to be able to solve
> entirely
> > on our own. So while I think these are serious concerns, I have mixed
> > feelings about them being prerequisites for a 0.96 release.
> >
> > A bunch of hard thoughtful intermingled work is underway in RPC and HFile
> > and other places, so that we only need to do a "singularity" once. We
> > should do a feature based release for this, not a time based one, is my
> > opinion. As for everything else, setting a target and seeing what falls
> in
> > or out based on that is worth doing.
> >
> > --
> > Best regards,
> >
> >    - Andy
> >
> > Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet Hein
> > (via Tom White)
> >
>
--
Best regards,

   - Andy

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

User has the flexibility of running 0.96 on jdk 1.6

Cheers

On Tue, Jan 8, 2013 at 7:59 PM, Andrew Purtell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> What do these two things have to do with each other?
>
> On Tuesday, January 8, 2013, Ted Yu wrote:
>
> > bq. depends on other communities because quite a bit seems broken on JDK
> 7
> > so I hear
> >
> > I have been running tests using 1.6.0_37 for trunk. Tests run smoothly so
> > far.
> >
> > FYI
> >
> > On Tue, Jan 8, 2013 at 10:32 AM, Andrew Purtell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <javascript:;>>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > On Tue, Jan 8, 2013 at 10:21 AM, Stack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]<javascript:;>>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > > > That said, I think we should make up a list of what people want to
> > see
> > > > in,
> > > > > and what could/should be excluded after we find that consensus.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > High-level, we have had this discussion IMO ([3]).  Would you like to
> > do
> > > it
> > > > again Andrew?
> > > >
> > > > Otherwise, I think folks need to bubble up critical issues (or strike
> > > them
> > > > down) and if any controversial, lets discuss them?
> > > >
> > >
> > > Some time has elapsed since that discussion, I think we should do it
> > again.
> > >
> > > For example, the notion of running on JDK 7 is new, and depends on
> other
> > > communities because quite a bit seems broken on JDK 7 so I hear. The
> > creep
> > > of "-Djava.net.preferIPv4=true" among Hadoop ecosystem projects is
> also a
> > > concern, and it bothers me that HDFS tests seem DOA without it on my
> dev
> > > box, so this also isn't something we are going to be able to solve
> > entirely
> > > on our own. So while I think these are serious concerns, I have mixed
> > > feelings about them being prerequisites for a 0.96 release.
> > >
> > > A bunch of hard thoughtful intermingled work is underway in RPC and
> HFile
> > > and other places, so that we only need to do a "singularity" once. We
> > > should do a feature based release for this, not a time based one, is my
> > > opinion. As for everything else, setting a target and seeing what falls
> > in
> > > or out based on that is worth doing.
> > >
> > > --
> > > Best regards,
> > >
> > >    - Andy
> > >
> > > Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet
> Hein
> > > (via Tom White)
> > >
> >
>
>
> --
> Best regards,
>
>    - Andy
>
> Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet Hein
> (via Tom White)
>

Ted you seem to have picked some random part of this conversation and
misunderstood it?

On Tuesday, January 8, 2013, Ted Yu wrote:

> User has the flexibility of running 0.96 on jdk 1.6
>
> Cheers
>
> On Tue, Jan 8, 2013 at 7:59 PM, Andrew Purtell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]<javascript:;>>
> wrote:
>
> > What do these two things have to do with each other?
> >
> > On Tuesday, January 8, 2013, Ted Yu wrote:
> >
> > > bq. depends on other communities because quite a bit seems broken on
> JDK
> > 7
> > > so I hear
> > >
> > > I have been running tests using 1.6.0_37 for trunk. Tests run smoothly
> so
> > > far.
> > >
> > > FYI
> > >
> > > On Tue, Jan 8, 2013 at 10:32 AM, Andrew Purtell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]<javascript:;>
> > <javascript:;>>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Tue, Jan 8, 2013 at 10:21 AM, Stack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]<javascript:;>
> <javascript:;>>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > > That said, I think we should make up a list of what people want
> to
> > > see
> > > > > in,
> > > > > > and what could/should be excluded after we find that consensus.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > High-level, we have had this discussion IMO ([3]).  Would you like
> to
> > > do
> > > > it
> > > > > again Andrew?
> > > > >
> > > > > Otherwise, I think folks need to bubble up critical issues (or
> strike
> > > > them
> > > > > down) and if any controversial, lets discuss them?
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Some time has elapsed since that discussion, I think we should do it
> > > again.
> > > >
> > > > For example, the notion of running on JDK 7 is new, and depends on
> > other
> > > > communities because quite a bit seems broken on JDK 7 so I hear. The
> > > creep
> > > > of "-Djava.net.preferIPv4=true" among Hadoop ecosystem projects is
> > also a
> > > > concern, and it bothers me that HDFS tests seem DOA without it on my
> > dev
> > > > box, so this also isn't something we are going to be able to solve
> > > entirely
> > > > on our own. So while I think these are serious concerns, I have mixed
> > > > feelings about them being prerequisites for a 0.96 release.
> > > >
> > > > A bunch of hard thoughtful intermingled work is underway in RPC and
> > HFile
> > > > and other places, so that we only need to do a "singularity" once. We
> > > > should do a feature based release for this, not a time based one, is
> my
> > > > opinion. As for everything else, setting a target and seeing what
> falls
> > > in
> > > > or out based on that is worth doing.
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Best regards,
> > > >
> > > >    - Andy
> > > >
> > > > Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet
> > Hein
> > > > (via Tom White)
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Best regards,
> >
> >    - Andy
> >
> > Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet Hein
> > (via Tom White)
> >
>
--
Best regards,

   - Andy

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

Stack, did you lose the bet to JD yet :-)

But seriously, should we consider branching 0.96 now? I know there are
quite a few blockers/criticals but they can be fixed/merged even after
the branching. Given that we want to release sooner a 0.96, I think it
makes sense to branch sooner as well and lock the scope somewhat (that
will also hopefully avoid creating more new blockers).

What is the absolute list of things we must wait for before branching?
Should it be only Snapshots? Should it be RPC, KeyValue serialization
& Snapshots. There are many other things being developed in trunk and
many of them are probably okay for 0.96 as well if they are completed
on time. But I think we should put a stake on the ground and consider
a date for branching and work towards achieving that. After that it'd
be up to the RM to consider something for 0.96 or not.

Should we aim for Feb 28 as the date for branching. Then we can have
an RC in approximately 1.5 - 2 months (April mid-end), and it would
probably be in line with what Andrew was thinking about when he
started this thread. Does it sound too aggressive?

Thanks,
Devaraj.

On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 4:02 PM, Stack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> We tried to doc our versioning up on wiki:
> http://wiki.apache.org/hadoop/Hbase/HBaseVersions?action=edit&editor=text
> Its out of date and needs moving into the ref guide but there is a
> section
> we could reuse that Todd did for 89, the "Development Release", explaining
> 0.95.
>
> (Chatting with Todd, he suggested not waiting for 0.96 to branch but just
> branch first 0.95 from trunk -- we could do that too though I wouldn't mind
> the rpc stabilizing first...)
>
> St.Ack
>
>
> On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 3:38 PM, Andrew Purtell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 3:34 PM, Enis Söztutar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> > I dont see why odd/even is better than adding -dev/-beta suffix,
>> > [...] If historically, 0.89/0.90 worked well, we
>> > might as well go with it.
>> >
>>
>> Right, the notion is to just do what we did before, having had this
>> discussion previously, to avoid going over this again.
>>
>>
>> --
>> Best regards,
>>
>>    - Andy
>>
>> Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet Hein
>> (via Tom White)
>>