hbase-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Elliott Clark <ecl...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Clarifying interface evolution freedom in patch releases (was: Re: [VOTE] Third release candidate for HBase 1.0.1 (RC2))
Date Fri, 24 Apr 2015 16:53:00 GMT
Is 2.7.1 going to have that not for production tag or was that tag just
because of the issues found late in the cycle that are now fixed?

On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 9:50 AM, Sean Busbey <busbey@cloudera.com> wrote:

> On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 7:34 PM, Nick Dimiduk <ndimiduk@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 4:13 PM, Stack <stack@duboce.net> wrote:
> >
> > > Does this 'admission' help with the which-hadoop thread too?
> > >
> >
> > Right -- "working toward semver".
> >
> > Are we now at liberty to bump to 2.6 or 2.7 even for branch-1.1? I still
> > have Karthik's offer to roll a 2.5.3 with the HDFS issue resolved.
> >
> > What about the jackson issue with 2.5 YARN runtime?
> >
> > Thanks Sean and Josh for being our community conscience on these issues.
> >
> >
> I think it would still be a good idea to encourage Hadoop to put out 2.5.3
> and 2.6.1 with their respective HDFS issues resolved. It'll be good for our
> downstream users who may not be able to upgrade to a new "major" Hadoop
> version yet.
>
> I don't think we should bump to 2.7.0, given the "not for production"
> disclaimer in the release notes. To me, it would seem equivalent to if
> Phoenix had updated to use HBase 0.99.
>
> On the Jackson thing, are folks opposed to compiling with the current older
> version and then packaging the newer version? That would make sure we don't
> start using 1.9 features in a way that would prevent downstream users from
> downgrading to 1.8, which combined with a release note would address my
> concerns.
>
>
> --
> Sean
>

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