hbase-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Nick Dimiduk <ndimi...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: The Renumbering (proposed)
Date Fri, 24 Apr 2015 00:50:57 GMT
On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 3:54 PM, Andrew Purtell <apurtell@apache.org> wrote:

> Can we ask Hadoop to make a 2.5.3 release with HDFS-7005?
>

I have, and the offer is on the table.

https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HDFS-7005?focusedCommentId=14505636&page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel#comment-14505636

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