hbase-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Kiru Pakkirisamy <kirupakkiris...@yahoo.com>
Subject Re: HBase - stable versions
Date Tue, 10 Sep 2013 15:59:30 GMT
Nicolas, makes sense. Thanks for the explanation.
 
Regards,
- kiru


________________________________
 From: Nicolas Liochon <nkeywal@gmail.com>
To: user <user@hbase.apache.org>; Kiru Pakkirisamy <kirupakkirisamy@yahoo.com>

Cc: "dev@hbase.apache.org" <dev@hbase.apache.org> 
Sent: Tuesday, September 10, 2013 12:31 AM
Subject: Re: HBase - stable versions
 

That's linux terminology. 0.95 is a developper release It should not go in
production. When it's ready for production, it will be released as 0.96
0.96 should be ready soon, tests (and fixes are in progress). There is
already a release candidate available: 0.96.RC0.
There should be a new release candidate (soon as well :-))
For details about the 0.96 RC0 see this thread:
http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.comp.java.hadoop.hbase.devel/39592

Cheers,

Nicolas


On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 8:22 AM, Kiru Pakkirisamy <kirupakkirisamy@yahoo.com
> wrote:

> BTW, can somebody explain the function/purpose of 0.95.2. Do the community
> expect 0.95.2 to be used in a prod env or does it have to 0.96.0 for that ?
> Also, I have some development hiccups with it (like cannot find the jar on
> the maven repo etc, if somebody can provide pointers that would be great).
>
>
> Regards,
> - kiru
>
>
> ________________________________
>  From: Ameya Kanitkar <ameya@groupon.com>
> To: user@hbase.apache.org; Kiru Pakkirisamy <kirupakkirisamy@yahoo.com>
> Cc: "dev@hbase.apache.org" <dev@hbase.apache.org>
> Sent: Monday, September 9, 2013 5:02 PM
> Subject: Re: HBase - stable versions
>
>
> We (Groupon), will also stick to 0.94 for near future.
>
> Ameya
>
>
> On Mon, Sep 9, 2013 at 4:03 PM, Kiru Pakkirisamy
> <kirupakkirisamy@yahoo.com>wrote:
>
> > When is 0.96 release being planned ? Right now we are testing against
> > 0.95.2 as this does not seem to have the HBASE-9410 bug.
> >
> >
> > Regards,
> > - kiru
> >
> > ________________________________
> >  From: Enis Söztutar <enis@apache.org>
> > To: hbase-user <user@hbase.apache.org>
> > Cc: "dev@hbase.apache.org" <dev@hbase.apache.org>
> > Sent: Wednesday, September 4, 2013 6:20 PM
> > Subject: Re: HBase - stable versions
> >
> >
> > As long as there is interest for 0.94, we will care for 0.94. However,
> when
> > 0.96.0 comes out, it will be marked as the next stable release, so I
> expect
> > that we would promote newcomers that branch.
> >
> > Any committer can propose any branch and release candidate any time, so
> if
> > there are road blocks for 0.94.x mainline, you might as well propose a
> new
> > branch.
> >
> > Enis
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Sep 4, 2013 at 4:29 PM, Varun Sharma <varun@pinterest.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > > We, at Pinterest, are also going to stay on 0.94 for a while since it
> has
> > > worked well for us and we don't have the resources to test 0.96 in the
> > EC2
> > > environment. That may change in the future but we don't know when...
> > >
> > >
> > > On Wed, Sep 4, 2013 at 1:53 PM, Andrew Purtell <apurtell@apache.org>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > If LarsH is willing to stay on as RM for 0.94 then IMHO we should
> > proceed
> > > > as today with the exception that 0.96 is what the stable symlink
> points
> > > to.
> > > >
> > > > As long as 0.94 has someone willing to RM and users such as
> Salesforce
> > > then
> > > > there will be individuals there and in the community motivated to
> keep
> > it
> > > > in good working order with occasional point releases. We should not
> > throw
> > > > up roadblocks or adopt an arbitrary policy, as long as new features
> > > arrive
> > > > in the branch as backports, and the changes maintain our point
> release
> > > > compatibility criteria (rolling restarts possible, no API
> regressions).
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, Sep 3, 2013 at 5:30 PM, lars hofhansl <larsh@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > With 0.96 being imminent we should start a discussion about
> > continuing
> > > > > support for 0.94.
> > > > >
> > > > > 0.92 became stale pretty soon after 0.94 was released.
> > > > > The relationship between 0.94 and 0.96 is slightly different,
> though:
> > > > >
> > > > > 1. 0.92.x could be upgraded to 0.94.x without downtime
> > > > > 2. 0.92 clients and servers are mutually compatible with 0.94
> clients
> > > and
> > > > > servers
> > > > > 3. the user facing API stayed backward compatible
> > > > >
> > > > > None of the above is true when moving from 0.94 to 0.96+.
> > > > > Upgrade from 0.94 to 0.96 will require a one-way upgrade process
> > > > including
> > > > > downtime, and client and server need to be upgraded in lockstep.
> > > > >
> > > > > I would like to have an informal poll about who's using 0.94 and
is
> > > > > planning to continue to use it; and who is planning to upgrade from
> > > 0.94
> > > > to
> > > > > 0.96.
> > > > > Should we officially continue support for 0.94? How long?
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks.
> > > > >
> > > > > -- Lars
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Best regards,
> > > >
> > > >    - Andy
> > > >
> > > > Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet
> > Hein
> > > > (via Tom White)
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message