hbase-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jean-Daniel Cryans <jdcry...@apache.org>
Subject Re: HBase trunk and Hadoop 0.21
Date Thu, 18 Feb 2010 21:41:57 GMT
Sounds good. For the sake of getting "nice" version numbers, what
about we do a bug fix-only release for 0.20.4 and then in 0.20.5 we
break RPC compatibility and add new features.

Also I we will need to backport cluster replication to 0.20.

J-D

On Thu, Feb 18, 2010 at 12:53 PM, Stack <stack@duboce.net> wrote:
> It looks like hbase 0.20.x will be around for longer than we were
> planning on.  Lets adapt.
>
> We should have a 0.20.4 soon that includes hbase-2180 and, IMO, it
> would include a one-time breakage of the RPC interface requiring a
> cluster shutdown to upgrade so we can get in "HBASE-2219  stop using
> code mapping for method names in the RPC".  We'd do this to set
> ourselves up for being more elastic going forward.  With it in place,
> we can add in interface changes -- e.g. add something like the
> multiput, multiget, etc. -- without breaking ability to do a rolling
> restart as we move through 0.20.5, 0.20.6 etc.  Then we should do
> aggressive roll out of new hbase 0.20.x versions, etc. with fixes that
> in particular can accomodate the evolving state of sync/flush on
> hadoop 0.20 branch (hdfs-200+, etc.).
>
> In hbase 0.21 we keep on with replication and master rewrite.  We also
> take on the notion that when hbase TRUNK is baked, we'll make it run
> on hadoop 0.20/0.21/0.22.
>
> I'm against an hbase 1.0.0 just now.
>
> St.Ack
>
>
> On Wed, Feb 17, 2010 at 11:42 AM, Jean-Daniel Cryans
> <jdcryans@apache.org> wrote:
>> Hi devs,
>>
>> Yesterday Stack, Ryan, Todd (from cloudera) and me had a meeting with the FB
>> team about the course of action we should take with regard to Hadoop 0.21.
>> Since Y! doesn't seem committed to release it anytime soon (or even use it),
>> most users will probably stick with Hadoop 0.20.
>>
>> What it means for us is no HDFS-265 until months and this is not a situation
>> our users should/will tolerate. Dhruba agreed to work on HDFS-200 (and some
>> others) to make sure we can have an equivalent support for sync (at least
>> from the HBase point of view). This work is targeted at Hadoop 0.20 although
>> it won't probably ever be in an Apache release.
>>
>> This means that the current HBase trunk should ideally support both
>> 0.20+HDFS-200 and 0.21 at the same time. I opened HBASE-2233 for that. Todd
>> was mentioning that if HDFS-200 isn't making the rest of Hadoop unstable,
>> they could even package it in some sort of release of theirs and make our
>> users' life easier. Could be a win-win.
>>
>> Should we still name the next major HBase release as 0.21? If it becomes
>> common for HBase to support multiple Hadoop releases, should we still follow
>> their version number? Could it be time for HBase 1.0?
>>
>> Let's hear everyone's opinion.
>>
>> J-D
>>
>

Mime
View raw message