hbase-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From lars hofhansl <la...@apache.org>
Subject Re: The Renumbering (proposed)
Date Thu, 23 Apr 2015 21:17:32 GMT
+1 (leaving 1.1 at Hadoop 2.5.x as is, and document how to use 2.6.x instead).

Note that I did not suggest going to 2.0 that in HBASE-13339, just that it would be an option
(after I said that forcing 2.6.0 in 1.1 would be a no-go, IMHO).
-- Lars
      From: Andrew Purtell <apurtell@apache.org>
 To: "dev@hbase.apache.org" <dev@hbase.apache.org> 
 Sent: Thursday, April 23, 2015 2:04 PM
 Subject: Re: The Renumbering (proposed)
   
On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 2:00 PM, Stack <stack@duboce.net> wrote:



> On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 12:03 PM, Andrew Purtell <apurtell@apache.org>
> wrote:
>
> > That's fine but we still have unresolved problems:
> >
> > > Are the hadoop 2.5.x/2.6.x incompats just a few transitive includes
> > brought in by hadoop 2.6? Can we not release-note/doc our way a semvar
> pass
> > because our brothers upstream are less puritan than us? Heck, lets
> 'blame'
> > them!
> >
> > We don't have a consensus on what to do about Hadoop 2.5/2.6. I proposed
> we
> > doc this like you say here before but got push back. So here I am talking
> > about renumbering as another path forward.
> >
> > Whatever.. but let's decide this now and move on. Do HBASE-13339 in 1.1?
> > Three possibilities:
> > 1. No, stay with 2.5
> >
>
> I'd be +1 here (adding section to refguide on 2.6).
>
>
​I'd be +1 here too, remove 1.1 as fix version from HBASE-13339 and update
the refguide instead​


-- 
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