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 AFB3F9180 for ; Fri, 2 Mar 2012 20:50:39 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 81687 invoked by uid 500); 2 Mar 2012 20:50:39 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-hbase-dev-archive@hbase.apache.org Received: (qmail 81639 invoked by uid 500); 2 Mar 2012 20:50:39 -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 81631 invoked by uid 99); 2 Mar 2012 20:50:39 -0000 Received: from nike.apache.org (HELO nike.apache.org) (192.87.106.230) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Fri, 02 Mar 2012 20:50:39 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=1.5 required=5.0 tests=HTML_MESSAGE,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of yuzhihong@gmail.com designates 74.125.82.169 as permitted sender) Received: from [74.125.82.169] (HELO mail-we0-f169.google.com) (74.125.82.169) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Fri, 02 Mar 2012 20:50:32 +0000 Received: by werj55 with SMTP id j55so1788725wer.14 for ; Fri, 02 Mar 2012 12:50:12 -0800 (PST) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of yuzhihong@gmail.com designates 10.180.107.169 as permitted sender) client-ip=10.180.107.169; Authentication-Results: mr.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of yuzhihong@gmail.com designates 10.180.107.169 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=yuzhihong@gmail.com; dkim=pass header.i=yuzhihong@gmail.com Received: from mr.google.com ([10.180.107.169]) by 10.180.107.169 with SMTP id hd9mr8513743wib.0.1330721412054 (num_hops = 1); Fri, 02 Mar 2012 12:50:12 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; bh=na19t+MKmDkVbNiIgcsOXNxTgk7JJeFN46axP9J7k5Y=; b=jKm/dNtTmttKYJ4I9SOl4ru81UMn24EnSMKTj56ER31GLcll6pj/rf1l/hg25RuPk9 wPzVH12lqfeecN2mIc2Ruf4yIiXDNL7I3wwytse2aQyltfgsVAVZ9T1CCux1LvjrbxP/ lGo2sC0Ddq9iDJHVs3rXnPgBxj2PhuTUD3b90DNrCF4w8SRDGAoktzr3FWRN3dIDnTI5 vPW1O9rvdRwwiAlp904h4WTu/2Ssje1n06sbkQs6/svv0crZ96syAab6fyUqpHWxpDzr NEHSoAna+9BOw/69rbk9QKZ7eR33mqobHUWLigc2mBqizSO4vPyBWQR9pkZDzsgvxg3t iajg== MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.180.107.169 with SMTP id hd9mr6835169wib.0.1330721412009; Fri, 02 Mar 2012 12:50:12 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.216.122.138 with HTTP; Fri, 2 Mar 2012 12:50:11 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2012 12:50:11 -0800 Message-ID: Subject: Re: DISCUSS: Have hbase require at least hadoop 1.0.0 in hbase 0.96.0? From: Ted Yu To: dev@hbase.apache.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=e89a8f2355990ecd9b04ba48b97b X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org --e89a8f2355990ecd9b04ba48b97b Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Hadoop 0.22 currently doesn't support security. FYI On Fri, Mar 2, 2012 at 11:24 AM, Stack wrote: > Should we make it so hbase 0.96.0 requires at least hadoop 1.0.0? > This would mean we would no longer support running on older versions > such as branch-0.20-append (and perhaps stuff like CDH2?)? > > Requiring Hadoop 1.0.0 at least means we can presume security and > append. We also narrow the set of hadoops we need to support > simplifying things for ourselves some. > > What you lot think? > St.Ack > --e89a8f2355990ecd9b04ba48b97b--