Home | About | Sematext search-lucene.com search-hadoop.com
NEW: Monitor These Apps!
elasticsearch, apache solr, apache hbase, hadoop, redis, casssandra, amazon cloudwatch, mysql, memcached, apache kafka, apache zookeeper, apache storm, ubuntu, centOS, red hat, debian, puppet labs, java, senseiDB
 Search Hadoop and all its subprojects:

Switch to Threaded View
HBase >> mail # dev >> Re: [DISCUSSION] Sorting out issues for 0.96 for (eventual) release


Copy link to this message
-
Re: [DISCUSSION] Sorting out issues for 0.96 for (eventual) release
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 Its out of date and needs moving into the ref guide but there is a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)
>>
NEW: Monitor These Apps!
elasticsearch, apache solr, apache hbase, hadoop, redis, casssandra, amazon cloudwatch, mysql, memcached, apache kafka, apache zookeeper, apache storm, ubuntu, centOS, red hat, debian, puppet labs, java, senseiDB