Thanks all for the active discussion. At present,The discussion was more in favor of delayed release. The main reason is that: 1. Some features have been merged recently, we need a few weeks to fix bugs, such as EC. 2. Many new features need improvement , such as EC needing Offline Recovery. 3. There are also some functions ready to merge, such as HDDS-4440. 4. There are other release blocks like HDDS-5141, HDDS-6040, HDDS-6390.
I agree with the above and we can delay release1.3.0 for a while. I will focus on tasks in 3 and 4 later and bring up the discussion again when appropriate. As for 2, we need to continue to discuss. Whether the release of 1.3.0 needs to wait for the completion of EC Offline Recovery? As far as I know, EC Offline Recovery has just developed a design doc. It may take a long time (maybe half a year) to complete the work (After all, we need to solve other EC bugs as well). This could be a year away from the 1.2.0 release, which is too long. If we don't want to wait so long, we need to be prepared for the EC to be incomplete in 1.3.0. If I missed something, you can add it. On Tue, Apr 26, 2022 at 4:46 AM István Fajth <fapi...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi, > > I also agree with Stephen and Ethan at least in that it is a bit early to > cut a new release... I would even consider calling the new release 2.0.0 as > so many new things are coming with it, it may be worth something bigger > than a minor version bump. > > But Ethan is right, we have a couple of things that are considered release > blockers in upgrade, and onboarding the new features to the upgrade > framework. I would also consider at least somewhat blocker to normalize > compatibility related additions, and extend those at least onto the SCM > side (see HDDS-6390 for which we already agreed that what is committed so > far is the minimum, and we already discussed it has to be refactored > somewhat). > EC stabilization and some polishing is also missing around configuration > validation and such also there are a few bugs already discovered, and I am > sure there will be a couple of others, so I would give at least a few weeks > to see how healthy the recently merged features and we can give them some > more love on the stability front even though such important things like EC > offline recovery is missing. > At least we should discuss all the things that were brought up, and see how > we can cut a release with the state of the developments. > > Pifta > > Ethan Rose <er...@cloudera.com.invalid> ezt írta (időpont: 2022. ápr. 22., > P, 16:58): > > > Also a reminder that there is still a merge vote for HDDS-4440 ongoing as > > well. It may be best to resolve that before discussing a release. > > > > On Fri, Apr 22, 2022 at 7:32 AM Ethan Rose <er...@cloudera.com> wrote: > > > > > Hi MingChao, thanks for driving this effort. > > > > > > We have a few release blockers on the upgrade side that need to be > > > resolved before we can release: > > > - SCM HA finalization (I have begun working on this): HDDS-5141 > > > - Onboarding FSO into the upgrade framework (this can start now that EC > > > has been onboarded): HDDS-6040 > > > - Client cross compatibility for FSO (I'm not sure if we have a > separate > > > Jira for this are planning on using HDDS-6040 for this as well) > > > > > > We should also clarify the state of the container balancer before we > > > release 1.3.0. Work in that area has been taking place on the master > > > branch, so the release will contain it. We need to document whether > this > > is > > > stable enough to use or should be considered beta quality. > > > > > > On Fri, Apr 22, 2022 at 5:35 AM guimark <guim...@126.com> wrote: > > > > > >> I think we could mark EC as a [tech preview] feature clearly in this > > >> 1.3.0 release. > > >> > > >> And we could release EC as a completed feature in the next release if > > >> possible. > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> At 2022-04-22 20:26:07, "Kota Uenishi" <k...@preferred.jp> wrote: > > >> >I would welcome 1.3 release even without EC available. This is > because > > >> >a lot of other features and fixes I need in our system. For example, > > >> >HDDS-5881, HDDS-5461, HDDS-5656, HDDS-5975, HDDS-6321 and such. > > >> >Delivering them would be very valuable. > > >> >As RocksDB crash is also happening in our cluster intermittently, so > I > > >> >also bet some of my pennies onto updating RocksDB to 7.0.4 with some > > >> >hope. > > >> > > > >> >EC is not in the road map planed after 1.2 release, too [1]. But I > > >> >agree that it can be de-emphasized, and EC readiness can be announced > > >> >in some later version like 1.4.0. > > >> > > > >> >[1] https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OZONE/Ozone+Roadmap > > >> > > > >> >On Fri, Apr 22, 2022 at 8:17 PM Kaijie Chen <c...@kaijie.org.invalid > > > > >> wrote: > > >> >> > > >> >> I think 1.2.2 sounds like a bug fix version.If we are going to > > release > > >> a new feature version, 1.3.0 would be the proper name. ---- On 星期五, 22 > > 四月 > > >> 2022 19:13:18 +0800 captain...@apache.org wrote ----Thanks @Stephen > > >> for your feedback. > > >> >> > > >> >> Maybe we can de-emphasize the EC in this version. If EC recovery is > > >> >> completed, it will take until the second half of the year. > > >> >> It's been a little long since the last release. Since last > release, > > >> FSO, > > >> >> S3gateway, OM, container Balancer have made some > > >> >> optimizations and bug fixes. We could even release a small version > > >> this > > >> >> time, like 1.2.2. We can release 1.3 next time. > > >> >> > > >> >> On Fri, Apr 22, 2022 at 5:43 PM Stephen O'Donnell > > >> >> <sodonn...@cloudera.com.invalid> wrote: > > >> >> > > >> >> > My feeling is that it may be worth waiting until the recovery > side > > >> of EC is > > >> >> > working before releasing. As it stands, EC is not in a usable > form > > - > > >> the > > >> >> > feature is half done. If we release 1.3.0 now, we cannot state EC > > is > > >> >> > available in it. > > >> >> > > > >> >> > On Fri, Apr 22, 2022 at 9:43 AM mingchao zhao < > > captain...@apache.org > > >> > > > >> >> > wrote: > > >> >> > > > >> >> > > Dear all, > > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > It has been a few months since the Ozone 1.2.0 & 1.2.1 release, > > >> and we > > >> >> > have > > >> >> > > had a > > >> >> > > number of new features (EC）and some optimization(s3gateway) and > > >> some > > >> >> > > bug fixes > > >> >> > > for 1.2 that have been merged to master since then. I think > this > > >> would > > >> >> > be a > > >> >> > > good time > > >> >> > > to work on the Ozone 1.3.0 release. Also, I volunteered to take > > up > > >> the > > >> >> > role > > >> >> > > of the > > >> >> > > Release Manager for this release. > > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > Please let me know what you think. > > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > -- > > >> >> > > Thanks & Regards, > > >> >> > > MingChao > > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> >-- > > >> >-- > > >> >Kota UENISHI, Engineer > > >> > > > >> >--------------------------------------------------------------------- > > >> >To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@ozone.apache.org > > >> >For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@ozone.apache.org > > >> > > > > > > > > -- > Pifta >
