Mailing-List: contact user-help@hbase.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: user@hbase.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: local policy)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws;
  s=s1024; d=yahoo.com;
  h=X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-Rocket-MIMEInfo:X-RocketYMMF:X-Mailer:Message-ID:Date:From:Reply-To:Subject:To:MIME-Version:Content-Type;
  b=xag01ekw9ISdM62H020re9SbzeTJxavB08sswitGkFSxCcE8RpWzEyT0cY6H0qpnlpOSEd45fCquBsvh8Uz5LAqXvUTMg0s0v9Zkrlk3DO7apR+Z6VnnCx/g7Xca4VUmbbBHt/b072fB0xF2zVHoPkgRM36ExyDQ8+GLI5VJ71I=;
Message-ID: <1378254601.38460.YahooMailNeo@web140602.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>
Date: Tue, 3 Sep 2013 17:30:01 -0700 (PDT)
From: lars hofhansl <larsh@apache.org>
Reply-To: lars hofhansl <larsh@apache.org>
Subject: HBase - stable versions
To: hbase-dev <dev@hbase.apache.org>, hbase-user <user@hbase.apache.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii

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