hbase-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Nick Dimiduk <ndimi...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Clarifying interface evolution freedom in patch releases (was: Re: [VOTE] Third release candidate for HBase 1.0.1 (RC2))
Date Mon, 27 Apr 2015 16:53:16 GMT
Seems I misunderstood the conclusion of this discussion and pushed
prematurely HBASE-13339 (and perhaps HBASE-13149). On that ticket, Lars

> I don't recall that we agreed on this. Should be in trunk (2.0) no doubt.
There was a longer discussion about 1.1 and I seem to recall
> that we said we do not want to force a major Hadoop with a minor HBase
upgrade and that instead we'd document in the book how
> build with Hadoop 2.6.0.

My understanding of this discussion was that we have relaxed out statement
regarding adherence to semantic versioning guidelines. Thus a minor version
bump of the Hadoop dependency was acceptable, particularly considering the
bug found on 2.5. Furthermore, following Hadoop on it's Jackson version was
the prudent decision for allowing our tools to work using either common
invocation patterns.

I got this wrong? Can someone summarize the decision here so that I can
move forward with an RC?


On Sun, Apr 26, 2015 at 11:33 AM, Nick Dimiduk <ndimiduk@gmail.com> wrote:

> I spoke with a couple of our HDFS folks on Friday, they sound confident
> that 2.7.1 will be considered production-stable. I think we can try bumping
> master to 2.7.1 when it's out.
> On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 10:03 AM, Sean Busbey <busbey@cloudera.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 11:53 AM, Elliott Clark <eclark@apache.org>
>> wrote:
>> > 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?
>> >
>> >
>> From reading from hadoop lists, I'm not sure. Including the non-production
>> tag seemed to be a compromise position to get 2.7.0 out the door. The
>> cycle
>> covered so much ground that I'm not sure when it got decided. The
>> discussion also got them onto figuring out what their general policy on
>> production / non-production will be. When they come to a decision it'll be
>> good to revisit and see what it means for us.
>> At least some of the Hadoopers are in agreement that 2.7.1 should be
>> labeled production ready. No one was opposed to the matter, but there were
>> some noticeable gaps in assenting voices[1].
>> It's supposed to be soon, so we'll see I guess?
>> [1]:
>> http://markmail.org/thread/zwzze6cqqgwq4rmw#query:+page:1+mid:u6pihxyy36pzz52e+state:results
>> --
>> Sean

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