Return-Path: X-Original-To: apmail-hbase-dev-archive@www.apache.org Delivered-To: apmail-hbase-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by minotaur.apache.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 5471E94E1 for ; Fri, 27 Jan 2012 18:49:36 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 72583 invoked by uid 500); 27 Jan 2012 18:49:35 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-hbase-dev-archive@hbase.apache.org Received: (qmail 72493 invoked by uid 500); 27 Jan 2012 18:49:35 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@hbase.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: dev@hbase.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list dev@hbase.apache.org Received: (qmail 72485 invoked by uid 99); 27 Jan 2012 18:49:34 -0000 Received: from nike.apache.org (HELO nike.apache.org) (192.87.106.230) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Fri, 27 Jan 2012 18:49:34 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.7 required=5.0 tests=RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of saint.ack@gmail.com designates 209.85.214.169 as permitted sender) Received: from [209.85.214.169] (HELO mail-tul01m020-f169.google.com) (209.85.214.169) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Fri, 27 Jan 2012 18:49:27 +0000 Received: by obbta7 with SMTP id ta7so2818072obb.14 for ; Fri, 27 Jan 2012 10:49:06 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=EIcupuUJj/WBJR6KIks/LfV8ohQ1hjgCDXrtQq0DCvs=; b=KRbgLIIbt4hhPe73S3nF1uJoO8062nKGTXp3EKRE2TzrdJ1slNCeUH36oNtMn4TnKk GtXmZOTCX+QdHu1h2SSotz0MtM39+zrbPa48lQ5X1l3z8DlWXkiJqyY25q/1T8pfqW/4 rNR2+3C9Qag92VehCs2GwfoGvcjR8XRy9bnvk= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.182.0.106 with SMTP id 10mr7432715obd.72.1327690146547; Fri, 27 Jan 2012 10:49:06 -0800 (PST) Sender: saint.ack@gmail.com Received: by 10.182.7.101 with HTTP; Fri, 27 Jan 2012 10:49:06 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <1327684602.30746.YahooMailNeo@web121704.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> References: <1327606127.90568.YahooMailNeo@web164512.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <1327606872.90091.YahooMailNeo@web164501.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <1327608979.84453.YahooMailNeo@web121702.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> <203EEA10-0B66-4513-835D-21C8B2D6BFB7@gmail.com> <1327625630.53849.YahooMailNeo@web121706.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> <1327627811.77833.YahooMailNeo@web121705.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> <1327638287.62005.YahooMailNeo@web121701.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> <1327684602.30746.YahooMailNeo@web121704.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2012 10:49:06 -0800 X-Google-Sender-Auth: 1PHHRx9OqhYtMaUWSLifqSlGRZs Message-ID: Subject: Re: hbase 0.94.0 From: Stack To: dev@hbase.apache.org, lars hofhansl Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org On Fri, Jan 27, 2012 at 9:16 AM, lars hofhansl wrote: > Stack, what's your feeling w.r.t. to HBASE-2600, will keeping the 0.90 -> 0.92 migration path > make the migration code for HBASE-2600 (much) more complicated in 0.94? > hbase-2600 should go in when its ready. It might make 0.94. Its ok if it doesn't I'd say. We need to tread carefully regards 2600 (Alex is on it. He was here Tuesday. We talked of making a 2600 branch w/ his current work and in which we'd work through bugs and migration). If you want to facilitate CDH4 carrying 0.94, I'd say 2600 goes into 0.96 because it'll require migration effort by Clouderians hacking up a migration script that runs the 0.90->0.92 .META. rewrite followed by the 2600 .META. rewrite. I say 'by Clouderians' because as I say above, I don't think we should be in the business of testing and verifying what happens if you skip versions upgrading. I'd be fine pushing out 2600. CDHs hang around a while. Having to answer 0.92 questions when the rest of us are 0.94'ing or 0.96ing would be a pain. St.Ack