Mailing-List: contact dev-help@hbase.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@hbase.apache.org
Received-SPF: error (athena.apache.org: local policy)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <1378254601.38460.YahooMailNeo@web140602.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>
References: <1378254601.38460.YahooMailNeo@web140602.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>
From: Jean-Marc Spaggiari <jean-marc@spaggiari.org>
Date: Tue, 3 Sep 2013 22:39:56 -0400
Message-ID: 
 <CAPQV63VFv8L-mQo0eWkJAqOPjzd+qJy19hz42_wETZkNnKNKQA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: HBase - stable versions
To: user <user@hbase.apache.org>, lars hofhansl <larsh@apache.org>
Cc: hbase-dev <dev@hbase.apache.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c2d7a8bf8fae04e585b91e

--001a11c2d7a8bf8fae04e585b91e
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hi Lars,

Thanks for starting the discussion.

My 2=C2=A2:
I think we should keep 0.94 going for at least few minor releases. To apply
big fixes and performances fixes. However, new features should only go into
0.96 and should now not be backported anymore. That way we can keep 0,94
stable, but we can also encourage people to move to 0.96.

I personnaly have a 0.94 cluster that I will keep for few more month
because I don't have the ressouces to test the 0.96 migration yet. I guess
I'm not the only one in that situation. Many will want to see 0.96 being
0.96.3 or more before starting the migration...

I will not set a specific period of time for 0.94 to be maintain, but more
looking at the number of fixes done, and the interest for it, and
re-evaluate in few month.

JM


2013/9/3 lars hofhansl <larsh@apache.org>

> 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 includin=
g
> 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
>

--001a11c2d7a8bf8fae04e585b91e--