hbase-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Elliott Clark <ecl...@apache.org>
Subject Re: The Renumbering (proposed)
Date Thu, 23 Apr 2015 22:23:55 GMT
 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)
>
>
>

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