accumulo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Christopher <ctubb...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Minimum supported Hadoop?
Date Fri, 03 Jun 2016 04:17:25 GMT
Yes, I believe so. Good point.

On Fri, Jun 3, 2016, 00:15 Mike Drob <mdrob@mdrob.com> wrote:

> The ITs pass on certain Java versions, right? We can doc that and iterate
> from there.
> On Thu, Jun 2, 2016 at 11:09 PM Christopher <ctubbsii@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > Yeah, me either... but it does raise the question: if we can't provide
> > proper Kerberos support (ITs don't even pass, IIRC) using a dependency
> > older than 2.6.1, how much can we really say 1.7.2 works on those older
> > versions?
> >
> > On Thu, Jun 2, 2016 at 11:50 PM Mike Drob <mdrob@mdrob.com> wrote:
> >
> > > I would not feel comfortable bumping the min req Hadoop in 1.7.2
> > >
> > > On Wed, Jun 1, 2016 at 6:39 PM Christopher <ctubbsii@apache.org>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Perhaps. But the tests pass with 2.6.1, I think. Shouldn't be that
> much
> > > > different in terms of support, so I figured go with the minimum we
> can
> > > test
> > > > with. FWIW, this affects 1.7.2 also, but i figured a bump there would
> > be
> > > > more controversial.
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Jun 1, 2016, 19:22 Josh Elser <josh.elser@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > For that reasoning, wouldn't bumping to 2.6.4 be better (as long
as
> > > > > Hadoop didn't do anything screwy that they shouldn't have in a
> > > > > maintenance release...)
> > > > >
> > > > > I have not looked at deltas between 2.6.1 and 2.6.4
> > > > >
> > > > > Christopher wrote:
> > > > > > I was looking at the recently bumped tickets and noticed
> > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ACCUMULO-4150
> > > > > >
> > > > > > It seems to me that we may want to make our minimum supported
> > Hadoop
> > > > > > version 2.6.1, at least for the 1.8.0 release.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > That's not to say it won't work with other versions... just
that
> > it's
> > > > not
> > > > > > something we're testing for in the latest release, and isn't
> > > > recommended
> > > > > > (and possibly, a downstream packager may need to patch Accumulo
> to
> > > > > support
> > > > > > the older version).
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message