hbase-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jean-Marc Spaggiari <jean-m...@spaggiari.org>
Subject Re: Default hadoop version for 0.94?
Date Thu, 17 Oct 2013 18:58:26 GMT
I think also we should be able to compile against v1 if required. Don't
think we should remove the related code yet. Might be on the roadmap, but
most probably to soon to do that.  I'm not +1 because that will impact me
;) But can't be -1 (anyway, who cares, I'm not commiter ;)  )

Just one question, that is this going to give us? Will that make anything
faster to have 1.2 as the default version instead of 1.0?


2013/10/17 Andrew Purtell <apurtell@apache.org>

> +1, if the current default version of 1 we build against can't even be
> downloaded except from the archives, that's not good.
>
>
> On Thu, Oct 17, 2013 at 11:15 AM, Nick Dimiduk <ndimiduk@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > +1 from me as well. Keep on moving forward.
> >
> > Does this mean we can delete some old API compatibility code soon? I <3
> > deleting code ;)
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Oct 17, 2013 at 11:09 AM, lars hofhansl <larsh@apache.org>
> wrote:
> >
> > > So this is a resounding: "Maybe"? :)
> > >
> > >
> > > I think we should change the default. HBase should be built from source
> > > for a specific version of Hadoop anyway.
> > >
> > > Ted said +1.
> > >
> > > Any other opinions?
> > >
> > >
> > > -- Lars
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > >  From: Jean-Marc Spaggiari <jean-marc@spaggiari.org>
> > > To: dev <dev@hbase.apache.org>; lars hofhansl <larsh@apache.org>
> > > Sent: Wednesday, October 9, 2013 5:13 PM
> > > Subject: Re: Default hadoop version for 0.94?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > That's on my roadmap, but lacking some time for that ;) I bought a new
> > > cluster where I will install Hadoop 1.2.1 or 2.x and replicate my
> current
> > > cluster to it, but still need some time to do that :(
> > >
> > > But the issue is not just me. Me, I can deal with that. But maybe
> others
> > > might be in the same situation?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > 2013/10/9 lars hofhansl <larsh@apache.org>
> > >
> > > That's what I was trying to find out :)
> > > >You do not want to upgrade to Hadoop 1.2.1?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >-- Lars
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >________________________________
> > > > From: Jean-Marc Spaggiari <jean-marc@spaggiari.org>
> > > >To: dev <dev@hbase.apache.org>; lars hofhansl <larsh@apache.org>
> > > >Sent: Wednesday, October 9, 2013 4:04 PM
> > > >Subject: Re: Default hadoop version for 0.94?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >Hum. I usually just deploy the .jar on my cluster (hadoop 1.0.3)
> without
> > > >rebuilding anything. Not sure if some others are not doing the same.
> > That
> > > >change will break the compatibility with previous version, no?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >2013/10/9 lars hofhansl <larsh@apache.org>
> > > >
> > > >> Should we default the HBase 0.94 builds to Hadoop 1.2.x (1.2.1
> > > currently)?
> > > >> It's the current stable release of the Hadoop. Can't even download
> > 1.0.4
> > > >> anymore unless you navigate to the archive section.
> > > >>
> > > >> This would just apply to the sample packages in the download section
> > for
> > > >> HBase. User should really build a targeted version of HBase to their
> > > >> version of Hadoop anyway.
> > > >>
> > > >> Comments?
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> -- 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