Mailing-List: contact dev-help@hbase.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@hbase.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of enis.soz@gmail.com designates
 209.85.160.170 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: 
 <CALte62x-JQTUBSrL5pYdh_k7FuHPUg6QoAjCFj0VBFs2=rP3Pw@mail.gmail.com>
References: 
 <CAMUu0w93MGp7ZBbxGccOV+be3EtMkvn5ATZOwvzQD_gegdK4NQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CALte62xgohBXejkpuLuzKbeMavYg_peZFfY79zJk1MnXx+28Lw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAha9a3qawvY1xtBRMX9q7SYY-V2rngo0-1FvDhXkQV3m-2b1w@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAMUu0w82ej9kgxuds3dqn0bPLOdZr7ur3RSFEm0wbcruVfW3kA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CA+RK=_B2OaWqeYd24j+mUHzo7r40aYW4JU3_9ZFpLchb4CbtzQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <1393983906.36211.YahooMailNeo@web140604.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>
 <CADcMMgH7BTgs9=61SJshPfmtJwCY=E3qJtUSzF9vtjURGO18fA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CA+RK=_BcG=huab5JB6Se2f3XA=-2zUqyOQVq09jX3Gj40XU-nw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CALte62wE47UmVHiz7V771AA=_g6NzmHspBpxEWboqVOv4kJRqg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAMUu0w8UvRN2Tc=JNECK94xdN4dQpjGqY4Xsdo7cxASeTR+BPg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CALte62x-JQTUBSrL5pYdh_k7FuHPUg6QoAjCFj0VBFs2=rP3Pw@mail.gmail.com>
From: =?UTF-8?Q?Enis_S=C3=B6ztutar?= <enis.soz@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2014 14:56:31 -0700
Message-ID: 
 <CAMUu0w9V414vB7zpMKdDDQYBrGs=4YCLJhDLrUeWBvYgbMoFAg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Hadoop1 support in 0.98/1.0
To: "dev@hbase.apache.org" <dev@hbase.apache.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=20cf30363a9fb9b96304f510d848

--20cf30363a9fb9b96304f510d848
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

+1.


On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 5:48 PM, Ted Yu <yuzhihong@gmail.com> wrote:

> Now that hadoop-1 support is dropped from trunk,
> should HBase-TRUNK-on-Hadoop-1.1 build be disabled ?
>
> Cheers
>
>
> On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 5:16 PM, Enis S=C3=B6ztutar <enis.soz@gmail.com> w=
rote:
>
> > Ok, the consensus seems to be to drop the support. I am all in favor of
> > less overhead, but was initially concerned about leaving some of the
> users
> > behind. If we are ok with that, lets pull the trigger.
> >
> > Opened an issue for doc and tasks :
> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-10690. Marked as critical
> for
> > 0.99.
> >
> > Enis
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 5:06 PM, Ted Yu <yuzhihong@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > bq. Maybe a new hadoop-compat module for 2.3.0 +?
> > >
> > > +1
> > >
> > >
> > > On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 5:02 PM, Andrew Purtell <apurtell@apache.org>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 3:39 AM, Stack <stack@duboce.net> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > But if we instead allow that our versioning currently is of-kilte=
r
> --
> > > > Lars
> > > > > Hofhansl has argued off-line that 0.96.0 should have been 1.0
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Related, is Hadoop 2.3.0 more like 3.0 ?
> > > >
> > > > If, for example, we wanted to pin the HFiles of IN_MEMORY tables in
> > > HDFS's
> > > > centralized cache, as HDFS-4949 suggests, then how different will o=
ur
> > > view
> > > > of the HDFS interfaces be between 2.0.0 and 2.3.0+? Would the (I'm
> > > > guessing) necessary reflection be a perf issue? Maybe a new
> > hadoop-compat
> > > > module for 2.3.0 +? Or drop support for Hadoop < 2.3.0 ?
> > > >
> > > > Point is - after we finish this discussion about Hadoop 1 or not
> (seems
> > > > not), then what to do about the different flavors of Hadoop 2.
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Best regards,
> > > >
> > > >    - Andy
> > > >
> > > > Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet
> > Hein
> > > > (via Tom White)
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

--20cf30363a9fb9b96304f510d848--