hbase-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ameya Kanitkar <am...@groupon.com>
Subject Re: HBase - stable versions
Date Tue, 10 Sep 2013 00:02:21 GMT
We (Groupon), will also stick to 0.94 for near future.

Ameya


On Mon, Sep 9, 2013 at 4:03 PM, Kiru Pakkirisamy
<kirupakkirisamy@yahoo.com>wrote:

> When is 0.96 release being planned ? Right now we are testing against
> 0.95.2 as this does not seem to have the HBASE-9410 bug.
>
>
> Regards,
> - kiru
>
> ________________________________
>  From: Enis Söztutar <enis@apache.org>
> To: hbase-user <user@hbase.apache.org>
> Cc: "dev@hbase.apache.org" <dev@hbase.apache.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, September 4, 2013 6:20 PM
> Subject: Re: HBase - stable versions
>
>
> As long as there is interest for 0.94, we will care for 0.94. However, when
> 0.96.0 comes out, it will be marked as the next stable release, so I expect
> that we would promote newcomers that branch.
>
> Any committer can propose any branch and release candidate any time, so if
> there are road blocks for 0.94.x mainline, you might as well propose a new
> branch.
>
> Enis
>
>
> On Wed, Sep 4, 2013 at 4:29 PM, Varun Sharma <varun@pinterest.com> wrote:
>
> > We, at Pinterest, are also going to stay on 0.94 for a while since it has
> > worked well for us and we don't have the resources to test 0.96 in the
> EC2
> > environment. That may change in the future but we don't know when...
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Sep 4, 2013 at 1:53 PM, Andrew Purtell <apurtell@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > If LarsH is willing to stay on as RM for 0.94 then IMHO we should
> proceed
> > > as today with the exception that 0.96 is what the stable symlink points
> > to.
> > >
> > > As long as 0.94 has someone willing to RM and users such as Salesforce
> > then
> > > there will be individuals there and in the community motivated to keep
> it
> > > in good working order with occasional point releases. We should not
> throw
> > > up roadblocks or adopt an arbitrary policy, as long as new features
> > arrive
> > > in the branch as backports, and the changes maintain our point release
> > > compatibility criteria (rolling restarts possible, no API regressions).
> > >
> > >
> > > On Tue, Sep 3, 2013 at 5:30 PM, lars hofhansl <larsh@apache.org>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > > With 0.96 being imminent we should start a discussion about
> continuing
> > > > support for 0.94.
> > > >
> > > > 0.92 became stale pretty soon after 0.94 was released.
> > > > The relationship between 0.94 and 0.96 is slightly different, though:
> > > >
> > > > 1. 0.92.x could be upgraded to 0.94.x without downtime
> > > > 2. 0.92 clients and servers are mutually compatible with 0.94 clients
> > and
> > > > servers
> > > > 3. the user facing API stayed backward compatible
> > > >
> > > > None of the above is true when moving from 0.94 to 0.96+.
> > > > Upgrade from 0.94 to 0.96 will require a one-way upgrade process
> > > including
> > > > downtime, and client and server need to be upgraded in lockstep.
> > > >
> > > > I would like to have an informal poll about who's using 0.94 and is
> > > > planning to continue to use it; and who is planning to upgrade from
> > 0.94
> > > to
> > > > 0.96.
> > > > Should we officially continue support for 0.94? How long?
> > > >
> > > > Thanks.
> > > >
> > > > -- Lars
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > 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