hbase-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Stack <st...@duboce.net>
Subject Re: old master to 0.90 and new master to 0.92? (was RE: Millions of photos into Hbase)
Date Tue, 21 Sep 2010 18:07:50 GMT
On Tue, Sep 21, 2010 at 10:19 AM, Todd Lipcon <todd@cloudera.com> wrote:
> CDH3b3 will be ready for Hadoop world, and we'd kind of like to freeze
> component versions at this point in the beta cycle. So if 0.90 is out,
> that would be great. We can certainly work with what we've got
> (20100830 minus ZK assignment) but if a production-worth new master
> isn't ready by the end of October or so we'll probably push that out
> til CDH4.


Its my thought that we'd have a production ready master way before end
of October.

>> I'm thinking we can afford to take such a position
>> because if someone wants durable hbase now, they can run with the
>> SU-prod 0.89.x that J-D is about to put up.
> This is going to be an official Apache release, right? I guess my
> question is: if it's stable and usable for production, why call it a
> "development release"? If we're recommending it for all new users over
> and above 0.20.6, then it seems like this should be deemed stable (ie
> even release number).

I was not talking of recommending the next 0.89.x to all new users
over 0.20.6.  I thought it plain that running a release in production
at SU did not mean the release 'stable and useable' by others. SU has
3 hbase committers aboard to fix and hand-hold the software over rough

I was thinking that the next 0.89.x comes w/ the same caveats as
previous 0.89.xs, that its a 'developer release' for those willing to
put up w/ some rough edges and that its just another step on the way
to 0.90.0.

>> Putting off new master till 0.92 means it'll be maybe 6 months before
>> it appears.  During this time we'll be paying a high price keeping up
>> two disparate branches -- TRUNK w/ new master and the release branch
>> -- shoe-horning patches to fit both.
> If you guys are running 20100830 in production, won't you be doing
> that anyway? Assumedly we'd treat this 0.90 as "no new features" and
> put the new features into 0.91.x leading up to 0.92?

Nope.  We'd move to new master release.  If it don't work for us, we'd
feel a little awkward recommending it to others.

>> We also confuse the 0.90 'message' given we've been talking about new
>> master at HUGs and here on the lists with a good while now.
> True. The question is whether we prefer to slip time or slip scope. In
> my opinion slipping scope is better - it's open source and people
> understand that schedules slip. Keeping strong release momentum up
> helps adoption and will get people off 0.20.6 which no one really
> wants to support anymore.

This is the question.  I'm just suggesting that new master MAY not be
that far out.  I want to do another couple of days work on it and then
have us make a call; i.e. vote that we press on to get new master into
0.90 or punt on new master for 0.90.


View raw message