hbase-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Andrew Purtell <andrew.purt...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] What we expect in upgrades to HBase 2.0.0
Date Sat, 28 Oct 2017 17:17:36 GMT
I would not like to see downgrades as a goal. This would be new. We've not done it before.
Laudible goal, but we are clearly stretched already. 

> On Oct 28, 2017, at 10:08 AM, Mike Drob <mdrob@apache.org> wrote:
> If downgrades are a later goal, does that mean somebody could go from some
> 1.x to 2.0 to 2.y then back to 1.x?
>> On Fri, Oct 27, 2017 at 10:42 PM, Sean Busbey <busbey@apache.org> wrote:
>> I'd like to make downgrades a non-goal. I'd love us to support
>> downgrades eventually, but that's a feature in its own right and I
>> don't think we have time to get it done and still have a 2.0.0 GA in a
>> reasonable time frame.
>>> On Fri, Oct 27, 2017 at 10:40 PM, Sean Busbey <busbey@apache.org> wrote:
>>> A recent JIRA about our hfile format[1] has got me thinking about
>>> expectations for upgrading. The specifics of that JIRA aren't terribly
>>> important; it's the general issue I want to talk about. A
>>> simplification of the mismatch in expectations between two groups is
>>> that some folks place the bar for "we support rolling upgrade" at
>>> rolling upgrade from 1.y.z* versions generally and others are
>>> comfortable requiring an initial upgrade to some later 1.y.z version
>>> first.
>>> Have we documented what our goals are for upgrades this major release?
>>> Do we know what we have to do to get there? I've seen a few one-off
>>> JIRAs to fix particular problems, but not really a plan.
>>> We should discuss here a bit.
>>> When things have some consensus is anyone willing to take point on
>>> writing up the results in a scope document of sorts? I have a few good
>>> examples to point you to, though they're all for features.
>>> [1]: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-19052

View raw message