Return-Path: 
 <dev-return-48495-apmail-hbase-dev-archive=hbase.apache.org@hbase.apache.org>
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 AD26517BEC
	for <apmail-hbase-dev-archive@www.apache.org>;
 Fri, 31 Oct 2014 22:36:18 +0000 (UTC)
Received: (qmail 2115 invoked by uid 500); 31 Oct 2014 22:36:18 -0000
Delivered-To: apmail-hbase-dev-archive@hbase.apache.org
Received: (qmail 2025 invoked by uid 500); 31 Oct 2014 22:36:18 -0000
Mailing-List: contact dev-help@hbase.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Help: <mailto:dev-help@hbase.apache.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:dev-unsubscribe@hbase.apache.org>
List-Post: <mailto:dev@hbase.apache.org>
List-Id: <dev.hbase.apache.org>
Reply-To: dev@hbase.apache.org
Delivered-To: mailing list dev@hbase.apache.org
Received: (qmail 2003 invoked by uid 99); 31 Oct 2014 22:36:17 -0000
Received: from nike.apache.org (HELO nike.apache.org) (192.87.106.230)
    by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Fri, 31 Oct 2014 22:36:17 +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
 209.85.213.46 as permitted sender)
Received: from [209.85.213.46] (HELO mail-yh0-f46.google.com) (209.85.213.46)
    by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Fri, 31 Oct 2014 22:35:51 +0000
Received: by mail-yh0-f46.google.com with SMTP id a41so3113264yho.19
        for <multiple recipients>; Fri, 31 Oct 2014 15:34:20 -0700 (PDT)
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=HGjN55x2EISOCsc1l+7Ml+7dAS+/vVuKCjd9RH03ViE=;
        b=0aGmnmwEDxO4MgH44q7x/El+mpJnMOACa0BojgJXIJUD3PrQ22/g6BLKfjcxv5bNUF
         N++Ns+d1eTzbqcwE27hPWzUiqsPld4XGw3WBSF0H6RoGTcPVv6E9+B6xbmD0p3BTsMbb
         a8towaUFIKrJvuGjSs/ZslPO1tpNJAxO2lHUbcG6/9PH8bpaQIWz+exEK3vZPiyOIWa7
         OgUYeJ5P0LnWPy/cLdw8pURDUjl7y9LzYV/nmabnNBkVAEBl+8o+KJCO9/zi3PrISA3+
         rLtniIjy+LvsBwrBlAY2ia7Zy/Zc3X0gsEWE6nkCQ0axJlitC7xzpuqo5iufEDHNm8HW
         RBXQ==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.236.20.226 with SMTP id p62mr16088187yhp.97.1414794859945;
 Fri, 31 Oct 2014 15:34:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.170.180.7 with HTTP; Fri, 31 Oct 2014 15:34:19 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAGHyZ6Lq1F8an3o+kEYCcgSVrOtWHqiQuSTbB6Puu6GRM5S_xQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: 
 <CA+RK=_CGo8aGk2AnmuVGej0GwfmRDpnwdmzMmPjKbKv_f0RBew@mail.gmail.com>
	<20141031180114.GG9693@tcos>
	<CA+RK=_BsOkbgH_uwyas-iA5L12R6B_sLKajq-2Q4dzDX14D5QA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAGHyZ6Lq1F8an3o+kEYCcgSVrOtWHqiQuSTbB6Puu6GRM5S_xQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2014 15:34:19 -0700
Message-ID: 
 <CALte62yYW1swaMGK6XcW6CY5qNo20_gQ6wwGCBRF2Bfxun-ZPg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [DISCUSSION] Dropping support for Hadoop 1.0 in 0.98
From: Ted Yu <yuzhihong@gmail.com>
To: "dev@hbase.apache.org" <dev@hbase.apache.org>,
 "user@hbase.apache.org" <user@hbase.apache.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c1de820ea5380506bf99ac
X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org

--001a11c1de820ea5380506bf99ac
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

Adding user@.

I would +1 this motion.

On Fri, Oct 31, 2014 at 12:18 PM, Sean Busbey <busbey@cloudera.com> wrote:

> +1, presuming we wouldn't change our position on hadoop 1.0 for 0.94.
>
> For the curious, here is the full support matrix Andrew is referencing:
> http://hbase.apache.org/book.html#d0e1440
>
> On Fri, Oct 31, 2014 at 1:13 PM, Andrew Purtell <apurtell@apache.org>
> wrote:
>
> > No, we'll still need a -hadoop1 and -hadoop2 munged build of 0.98. I'm
> only
> > suggesting removing support for version 1.0. Other version 1.x would
> remain
> > active in the compatibility list.
> >
> > On Fri, Oct 31, 2014 at 11:01 AM, Konstantin Boudnik <cos@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Absolutely makes sense! it will make a lot of things easier, really.
> The
> > > infamous need for classifiers will finally go away!
> > >
> > > On Fri, Oct 31, 2014 at 10:56AM, Andrew Purtell wrote:
> > > > Hadoop 1.0 is an ancient, and I believe dead, version that certainly
> > > nobody
> > > > should use today. We have a chronic problem on the 0.98 branch with
> > > changes
> > > > tested on only Hadoop 2 later are found to break builds against
> Hadoop
> > 1,
> > > > since only 0.94 and 0.98 still support Hadoop 1.x. See
> > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-12397 as an example.
> This
> > > issue
> > > > also illustrates that dropping support for 1.0 while retaining
> support
> > > for
> > > > 1.1 and later versions of Hadoop 1.x can reduce cross-version
> > > compatibility
> > > > complexity for at least the API involved in that issue, and certainly
> > > > others. This in my opinion is a good thing.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Best regards,
> > > >
> > > >    - Andy
> > > >
> > > > Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet
> > Hein
> > > > (via Tom White)
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Best regards,
> >
> >    - Andy
> >
> > Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet Hein
> > (via Tom White)
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Sean
>

--001a11c1de820ea5380506bf99ac--