accumulo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Dave Marion" <>
Subject RE: [DISCUSS] Hadoop3 support target?
Date Mon, 04 Dec 2017 23:27:41 GMT
There is no reason that you can't mark the offending API methods as deprecated in a 1.8.x release,
then immediately branch off of that to create a 2.0 and remove the method. Alternatively,
we could decide to forego the semver rules for a specific release and make sure to point it
out in the release notes.

-----Original Message-----
From: Josh Elser [] 
Sent: Monday, December 4, 2017 6:19 PM
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Hadoop3 support target?

Also, just to be clear for everyone else:

This means that we have *no roadmap* at all for Hadoop 3 support because Accumulo 2.0 is in
a state of languish.

This is a severe enough problem to me that I would consider breaking API compatibility and
fixing the API leak in 1.7/1.8. I'm curious what people other than Christopher think (assuming
from his comments/JIRA work that he disagrees with me).

On 12/4/17 6:12 PM, Christopher wrote:
> Agreed.
> On Mon, Dec 4, 2017 at 6:01 PM Josh Elser <> wrote:
>> Ah, I'm seeing now -- didn't check my inbox appropriately.
>> I think the fact that code that we don't own has somehow been allowed 
>> to be public API is the smell. That's something that needs to be 
>> rectified sooner than later. By that measure, it can *only* land on 
>> Accumulo 2.0 (which is going to be a major issue for the project).
>> On 12/4/17 5:58 PM, Josh Elser wrote:
>>> Sorry, I don't follow. Why do you think 4611/4753 is a show-stopper?
>>> Cuz, uh... I made it work already :)
>>> Thanks for the JIRA cleanup. Forgot about that one.
>>> On 12/4/17 5:55 PM, Christopher wrote:
>>>> I don't think we can support it with 1.8 or earlier, because of 
>>>> some serious incompatibilities (namely, ACCUMULO-4611/4753) I think 
>>>> people are still patching 1.7, so I don't think we've "officially"
>>>> EOL'd it.
>>>> I think 2.0 could require Hadoop 3, if Hadoop 3 is sufficiently stable.
>>>> On Mon, Dec 4, 2017 at 1:14 PM Josh Elser <> wrote:
>>>>> What branch do we want to consider Hadoop3 support?
>>>>> There is a 3.0.0-beta1 release that's been out for a while, and 
>>>>> Hadoop PMC has already done a 3.0.0 RC0. I think it's the right 
>>>>> time to start considering this.
>>>>> In my poking so far, I've filed ACCUMULO-4753 which I'm working 
>>>>> through now. This does raise the question: where do we want to say 
>>>>> we support Hadoop3? 1.8 or 2.0? (have we "officially" deprecated 
>>>>> 1.7?)
>>>>> - Josh

View raw message