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 21:05:38 GMT
In case folks aren't following over on HBASE-13339, I ran our fancy compat
checking script with small changes [0] against the candidate Hadoop
versions. You can investigate the resulting report [1] in more detail, but
it looks like the big-ticket binary compatibility changes are related to
classes and methods marked Evolving or Unstable. Outstanding issues
(HADOOP-11708, HDFS-8270) aside, I think we should be able to make this
update for a minor release. Our compatibility guide has a 'Y' in the
"Dependency compatibility" row under "Minor", and this should be satisfied
by the above report.

[0]: http://people.apache.org/~ndimiduk/check_compat_hadoop.patch

On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 9:53 AM, Nick Dimiduk <ndimiduk@gmail.com> wrote:

> Seems I misunderstood the conclusion of this discussion and pushed
> prematurely HBASE-13339 (and perhaps HBASE-13149). On that ticket, Lars
> states
> > 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?
> Thanks,
> Nick
> 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