hbase-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Andrew Purtell <apurt...@apache.org>
Subject Re: The Renumbering (proposed)
Date Thu, 23 Apr 2015 22:54:40 GMT
Can we ask Hadoop to make a 2.5.3 release with HDFS-7005?

> What incompatibility is in 2.6.0

This is a fair point. What's worse than HBASE-13149? which we hit with 2.5.



On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 3:23 PM, Elliott Clark <eclark@apache.org> wrote:

>  I just don't understand sticking with 2.5.1. Hadoop 2.5.1 is something
> that's basically un-usable in an environment with real load. I can't get it
> to pass 1/2 a day of IT tests ( which should mean that it fails all RC
> votes).
>
> The choice that we are giving the user:
>
> * Upgrade to get bug fixes critical bug fixes and risk some as of yet
> un-said incompatibility
> * Stay with 2.5.1 and know that regionserver can be wedged and completely
> stuck at any given time. With turning it off and back on being the only
> remediation.
>
> So to me it seems that sticking with 2.5.1 in the package while telling
> users to upgrade is just ignoring the issue so that we can claim semver.
> We're asking the user to do the upgrade themselves ( note that they are
> still exposed to any incompatibilities to hadoop 2.6 or 2.7) so that we can
> claim a pyrrhic victory.
>
> What incompatibility is in 2.6.0 or 2.7.0 that's worse than the bugs and
> un-usable hbase features of 2.5.1?
>
>
> On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 2:17 PM, lars hofhansl <larsh@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > +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).
> > >
> > >
> > ‚ÄčI'd be +1 here too, remove 1.1 as fix version from HBASE-13339 and
> update
> > the refguide instead‚Äč
> >
> >
> > --
> > 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)

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message