You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@hbase.apache.org by Sean Busbey <bu...@apache.org> on 2019/01/24 21:33:35 UTC
[NOTICE] Hadoop project discussing EOL for Hadoop 2.7
heads up that the Apache Hadoop project is discussing marking their 2.7
release line as EOL:
https://s.apache.org/Nm83
Hadoop 2.7.1+ is the most recent Hadoop release line to get the "(y)"
marker in our Hadoop matrix for HBase branches-1. It's also the earliest
Hadoop release line to get the same for our HBase branches-2.
If folks want to weigh in on that discussion, now's the time. What, if
anything, do we as a community want to do to prepare for when it eventually
happens?
Re: [NOTICE] Hadoop project discussing EOL for Hadoop 2.7
Posted by Sean Busbey <bu...@apache.org>.
yep! I agree that would be consistent with the previous consensus
position if that's what we want to do.
I'll try to take a look at the state of 2.8 and 2.9 and see if I can
answer your earlier question about "why not just go to for minimum 2.9
instead of 2.8?"
On Fri, Jan 25, 2019 at 1:22 PM Andrew Purtell <ap...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> By that rationale, for 1.6.0, we could look at setting the minimum Hadoop
> version to 2.8. I almost have 1.5.0 out the door and Hadoop hasn't
> concluded the 2.7 EOL discussion yet.
>
>
> On Fri, Jan 25, 2019 at 11:08 AM Sean Busbey <bu...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > it's dangerous to change our default build to be something other than
> > the oldest version we claim works because devs are less likely to
> > notice when they make use of some new feature Hadoop added. It would
> > help with what we ship in convenience packages, provided we do some
> > reasonable testing of compatibility for newer client to older servers
> > (or add a troubleshooting section reminder about how folks are
> > supposed to replace the hadoop jars).
> >
> > I guess we could add nightly tests that the old versions still work,
> > but I'm currently skeptical that anyone will notice if such a check
> > failed.
> >
> > I'm also in favor of conservative approach for branch-1. Ideally I'd
> > like to wait for HBase 3.y to have our default Hadoop be 3.y. Without
> > spiraling into a discussion about HBase major versions, I think we
> > need to start shipping alpha HBase 3 builds once the stable pointer
> > moves to a branch-2 based release.
> >
> > We've previously dropped support for Hadoop minor versions on a new
> > HBase minor release. That's how 2.7 became the minimum version for
> > 1.4.z and 1.5.z[1], there's a specific call out in the compatibility
> > guidelines about how we can't be as conservative as we would prefer
> > for something like Hadoop[2]. We also have talked about how we want to
> > work towards dropping dependencies with impactful (open and no work
> > around) CVEs[3]. If Hadoop doesn't keep doing 2.7 releases and we plan
> > to do HBase 1.y releases for ~years, then it's probably a short window
> > before we'll need to drop it. If that's unacceptable we should push
> > back on the DISCUSS I linked at start of thread. Even if it's "HBase
> > will get some contributors to show up in Hadoop and start running 2.7
> > releases" that would be better than e.g. us forking it here.
> >
> > [1]:
> > "[DISCUSS] Branching for HBase 1.5 and Hadoop minimum version update (to
> > 2.7)"
> > https://s.apache.org/FS2m
> >
> > [2]:
> > We have even stronger language in the guide where we say if Hadoop
> > doesn't keep doing releases we drop the supported marker.
> >
> > http://hbase.apache.org/book.html#hbase.versioning.compat
> >
> > [3]:
> > "[DISCUSS] Changing hadoop check versions in our hbase-personality?"
> > https://s.apache.org/uQk2
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Jan 25, 2019 at 11:29 AM Andrew Purtell
> > <an...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > I don't think we can drop support like that for minors per our
> > compatibility guidelines. I don't know how many run 2.7 or 2.8 in
> > production. We use 2.7 so for our own sake I'm -1 on this proposal. However
> > we could change the default 2.x version we build against to 2.9.2. Shall we
> > discuss that ?
> > >
> > > I have no opinion on what should be the default build profile for
> > branch-2. For branch-1 it needs to stay at 2.x for now as I am not able to
> > build it successfully with the 3.x profile. I think it is also pretty
> > unlikely someone will opt to use our 1.x with Hadoop 3. We could ask. Even
> > still, let's be conservative with 1.x, please.
> > >
> > >
> > > > On Jan 25, 2019, at 5:27 AM, 张铎(Duo Zhang) <pa...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I think we can drop the support of 2.7.x and 2.8.x when releasing
> > 2.2.0 and
> > > > 1.5.0?
> > > >
> > > > And is it the time to change our default building profile from hadoop2
> > to
> > > > hadoop3?
> > > >
> > > > Andrew Purtell <ap...@apache.org> 于2019年1月25日周五 上午11:22写道：
> > > >
> > > >> We could see what 2.9.2 looks like in terms of suitability and
> > stability.
> > > >> Is there any reason to look at 2.8 instead of jumping directly to 2.9?
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>> On Thu, Jan 24, 2019 at 1:33 PM Sean Busbey <bu...@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> > > >>>
> > > >>> heads up that the Apache Hadoop project is discussing marking their
> > 2.7
> > > >>> release line as EOL:
> > > >>>
> > > >>> https://s.apache.org/Nm83
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Hadoop 2.7.1+ is the most recent Hadoop release line to get the "(y)"
> > > >>> marker in our Hadoop matrix for HBase branches-1. It's also the
> > earliest
> > > >>> Hadoop release line to get the same for our HBase branches-2.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> If folks want to weigh in on that discussion, now's the time. What,
> > if
> > > >>> anything, do we as a community want to do to prepare for when it
> > > >> eventually
> > > >>> happens?
> > > >>>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> --
> > > >> Best regards,
> > > >> Andrew
> > > >>
> > > >> Words like orphans lost among the crosstalk, meaning torn from truth's
> > > >> decrepit hands
> > > >> - A23, Crosstalk
> > > >>
> >
>
>
> --
> Best regards,
> Andrew
>
> Words like orphans lost among the crosstalk, meaning torn from truth's
> decrepit hands
> - A23, Crosstalk
Re: [NOTICE] Hadoop project discussing EOL for Hadoop 2.7
Posted by Andrew Purtell <ap...@apache.org>.
By that rationale, for 1.6.0, we could look at setting the minimum Hadoop
version to 2.8. I almost have 1.5.0 out the door and Hadoop hasn't
concluded the 2.7 EOL discussion yet.
On Fri, Jan 25, 2019 at 11:08 AM Sean Busbey <bu...@apache.org> wrote:
> it's dangerous to change our default build to be something other than
> the oldest version we claim works because devs are less likely to
> notice when they make use of some new feature Hadoop added. It would
> help with what we ship in convenience packages, provided we do some
> reasonable testing of compatibility for newer client to older servers
> (or add a troubleshooting section reminder about how folks are
> supposed to replace the hadoop jars).
>
> I guess we could add nightly tests that the old versions still work,
> but I'm currently skeptical that anyone will notice if such a check
> failed.
>
> I'm also in favor of conservative approach for branch-1. Ideally I'd
> like to wait for HBase 3.y to have our default Hadoop be 3.y. Without
> spiraling into a discussion about HBase major versions, I think we
> need to start shipping alpha HBase 3 builds once the stable pointer
> moves to a branch-2 based release.
>
> We've previously dropped support for Hadoop minor versions on a new
> HBase minor release. That's how 2.7 became the minimum version for
> 1.4.z and 1.5.z[1], there's a specific call out in the compatibility
> guidelines about how we can't be as conservative as we would prefer
> for something like Hadoop[2]. We also have talked about how we want to
> work towards dropping dependencies with impactful (open and no work
> around) CVEs[3]. If Hadoop doesn't keep doing 2.7 releases and we plan
> to do HBase 1.y releases for ~years, then it's probably a short window
> before we'll need to drop it. If that's unacceptable we should push
> back on the DISCUSS I linked at start of thread. Even if it's "HBase
> will get some contributors to show up in Hadoop and start running 2.7
> releases" that would be better than e.g. us forking it here.
>
> [1]:
> "[DISCUSS] Branching for HBase 1.5 and Hadoop minimum version update (to
> 2.7)"
> https://s.apache.org/FS2m
>
> [2]:
> We have even stronger language in the guide where we say if Hadoop
> doesn't keep doing releases we drop the supported marker.
>
> http://hbase.apache.org/book.html#hbase.versioning.compat
>
> [3]:
> "[DISCUSS] Changing hadoop check versions in our hbase-personality?"
> https://s.apache.org/uQk2
>
>
> On Fri, Jan 25, 2019 at 11:29 AM Andrew Purtell
> <an...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > I don't think we can drop support like that for minors per our
> compatibility guidelines. I don't know how many run 2.7 or 2.8 in
> production. We use 2.7 so for our own sake I'm -1 on this proposal. However
> we could change the default 2.x version we build against to 2.9.2. Shall we
> discuss that ?
> >
> > I have no opinion on what should be the default build profile for
> branch-2. For branch-1 it needs to stay at 2.x for now as I am not able to
> build it successfully with the 3.x profile. I think it is also pretty
> unlikely someone will opt to use our 1.x with Hadoop 3. We could ask. Even
> still, let's be conservative with 1.x, please.
> >
> >
> > > On Jan 25, 2019, at 5:27 AM, 张铎(Duo Zhang) <pa...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > I think we can drop the support of 2.7.x and 2.8.x when releasing
> 2.2.0 and
> > > 1.5.0?
> > >
> > > And is it the time to change our default building profile from hadoop2
> to
> > > hadoop3?
> > >
> > > Andrew Purtell <ap...@apache.org> 于2019年1月25日周五 上午11:22写道：
> > >
> > >> We could see what 2.9.2 looks like in terms of suitability and
> stability.
> > >> Is there any reason to look at 2.8 instead of jumping directly to 2.9?
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>> On Thu, Jan 24, 2019 at 1:33 PM Sean Busbey <bu...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>> heads up that the Apache Hadoop project is discussing marking their
> 2.7
> > >>> release line as EOL:
> > >>>
> > >>> https://s.apache.org/Nm83
> > >>>
> > >>> Hadoop 2.7.1+ is the most recent Hadoop release line to get the "(y)"
> > >>> marker in our Hadoop matrix for HBase branches-1. It's also the
> earliest
> > >>> Hadoop release line to get the same for our HBase branches-2.
> > >>>
> > >>> If folks want to weigh in on that discussion, now's the time. What,
> if
> > >>> anything, do we as a community want to do to prepare for when it
> > >> eventually
> > >>> happens?
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> --
> > >> Best regards,
> > >> Andrew
> > >>
> > >> Words like orphans lost among the crosstalk, meaning torn from truth's
> > >> decrepit hands
> > >> - A23, Crosstalk
> > >>
>
--
Best regards,
Andrew
Words like orphans lost among the crosstalk, meaning torn from truth's
decrepit hands
- A23, Crosstalk
Re: [NOTICE] Hadoop project discussing EOL for Hadoop 2.7
Posted by Sean Busbey <bu...@apache.org>.
it's dangerous to change our default build to be something other than
the oldest version we claim works because devs are less likely to
notice when they make use of some new feature Hadoop added. It would
help with what we ship in convenience packages, provided we do some
reasonable testing of compatibility for newer client to older servers
(or add a troubleshooting section reminder about how folks are
supposed to replace the hadoop jars).
I guess we could add nightly tests that the old versions still work,
but I'm currently skeptical that anyone will notice if such a check
failed.
I'm also in favor of conservative approach for branch-1. Ideally I'd
like to wait for HBase 3.y to have our default Hadoop be 3.y. Without
spiraling into a discussion about HBase major versions, I think we
need to start shipping alpha HBase 3 builds once the stable pointer
moves to a branch-2 based release.
We've previously dropped support for Hadoop minor versions on a new
HBase minor release. That's how 2.7 became the minimum version for
1.4.z and 1.5.z[1], there's a specific call out in the compatibility
guidelines about how we can't be as conservative as we would prefer
for something like Hadoop[2]. We also have talked about how we want to
work towards dropping dependencies with impactful (open and no work
around) CVEs[3]. If Hadoop doesn't keep doing 2.7 releases and we plan
to do HBase 1.y releases for ~years, then it's probably a short window
before we'll need to drop it. If that's unacceptable we should push
back on the DISCUSS I linked at start of thread. Even if it's "HBase
will get some contributors to show up in Hadoop and start running 2.7
releases" that would be better than e.g. us forking it here.
[1]:
"[DISCUSS] Branching for HBase 1.5 and Hadoop minimum version update (to 2.7)"
https://s.apache.org/FS2m
[2]:
We have even stronger language in the guide where we say if Hadoop
doesn't keep doing releases we drop the supported marker.
http://hbase.apache.org/book.html#hbase.versioning.compat
[3]:
"[DISCUSS] Changing hadoop check versions in our hbase-personality?"
https://s.apache.org/uQk2
On Fri, Jan 25, 2019 at 11:29 AM Andrew Purtell
<an...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I don't think we can drop support like that for minors per our compatibility guidelines. I don't know how many run 2.7 or 2.8 in production. We use 2.7 so for our own sake I'm -1 on this proposal. However we could change the default 2.x version we build against to 2.9.2. Shall we discuss that ?
>
> I have no opinion on what should be the default build profile for branch-2. For branch-1 it needs to stay at 2.x for now as I am not able to build it successfully with the 3.x profile. I think it is also pretty unlikely someone will opt to use our 1.x with Hadoop 3. We could ask. Even still, let's be conservative with 1.x, please.
>
>
> > On Jan 25, 2019, at 5:27 AM, 张铎(Duo Zhang) <pa...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > I think we can drop the support of 2.7.x and 2.8.x when releasing 2.2.0 and
> > 1.5.0?
> >
> > And is it the time to change our default building profile from hadoop2 to
> > hadoop3?
> >
> > Andrew Purtell <ap...@apache.org> 于2019年1月25日周五 上午11:22写道：
> >
> >> We could see what 2.9.2 looks like in terms of suitability and stability.
> >> Is there any reason to look at 2.8 instead of jumping directly to 2.9?
> >>
> >>
> >>> On Thu, Jan 24, 2019 at 1:33 PM Sean Busbey <bu...@apache.org> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> heads up that the Apache Hadoop project is discussing marking their 2.7
> >>> release line as EOL:
> >>>
> >>> https://s.apache.org/Nm83
> >>>
> >>> Hadoop 2.7.1+ is the most recent Hadoop release line to get the "(y)"
> >>> marker in our Hadoop matrix for HBase branches-1. It's also the earliest
> >>> Hadoop release line to get the same for our HBase branches-2.
> >>>
> >>> If folks want to weigh in on that discussion, now's the time. What, if
> >>> anything, do we as a community want to do to prepare for when it
> >> eventually
> >>> happens?
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Best regards,
> >> Andrew
> >>
> >> Words like orphans lost among the crosstalk, meaning torn from truth's
> >> decrepit hands
> >> - A23, Crosstalk
> >>
Re: [NOTICE] Hadoop project discussing EOL for Hadoop 2.7
Posted by Andrew Purtell <an...@gmail.com>.
I don't think we can drop support like that for minors per our compatibility guidelines. I don't know how many run 2.7 or 2.8 in production. We use 2.7 so for our own sake I'm -1 on this proposal. However we could change the default 2.x version we build against to 2.9.2. Shall we discuss that ?
I have no opinion on what should be the default build profile for branch-2. For branch-1 it needs to stay at 2.x for now as I am not able to build it successfully with the 3.x profile. I think it is also pretty unlikely someone will opt to use our 1.x with Hadoop 3. We could ask. Even still, let's be conservative with 1.x, please.
> On Jan 25, 2019, at 5:27 AM, 张铎(Duo Zhang) <pa...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I think we can drop the support of 2.7.x and 2.8.x when releasing 2.2.0 and
> 1.5.0?
>
> And is it the time to change our default building profile from hadoop2 to
> hadoop3?
>
> Andrew Purtell <ap...@apache.org> 于2019年1月25日周五 上午11:22写道：
>
>> We could see what 2.9.2 looks like in terms of suitability and stability.
>> Is there any reason to look at 2.8 instead of jumping directly to 2.9?
>>
>>
>>> On Thu, Jan 24, 2019 at 1:33 PM Sean Busbey <bu...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> heads up that the Apache Hadoop project is discussing marking their 2.7
>>> release line as EOL:
>>>
>>> https://s.apache.org/Nm83
>>>
>>> Hadoop 2.7.1+ is the most recent Hadoop release line to get the "(y)"
>>> marker in our Hadoop matrix for HBase branches-1. It's also the earliest
>>> Hadoop release line to get the same for our HBase branches-2.
>>>
>>> If folks want to weigh in on that discussion, now's the time. What, if
>>> anything, do we as a community want to do to prepare for when it
>> eventually
>>> happens?
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Best regards,
>> Andrew
>>
>> Words like orphans lost among the crosstalk, meaning torn from truth's
>> decrepit hands
>> - A23, Crosstalk
>>
Re: [NOTICE] Hadoop project discussing EOL for Hadoop 2.7
Posted by "张铎 (Duo Zhang)" <pa...@gmail.com>.
I think we can drop the support of 2.7.x and 2.8.x when releasing 2.2.0 and
1.5.0?
And is it the time to change our default building profile from hadoop2 to
hadoop3?
Andrew Purtell <ap...@apache.org> 于2019年1月25日周五 上午11:22写道：
> We could see what 2.9.2 looks like in terms of suitability and stability.
> Is there any reason to look at 2.8 instead of jumping directly to 2.9?
>
>
> On Thu, Jan 24, 2019 at 1:33 PM Sean Busbey <bu...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > heads up that the Apache Hadoop project is discussing marking their 2.7
> > release line as EOL:
> >
> > https://s.apache.org/Nm83
> >
> > Hadoop 2.7.1+ is the most recent Hadoop release line to get the "(y)"
> > marker in our Hadoop matrix for HBase branches-1. It's also the earliest
> > Hadoop release line to get the same for our HBase branches-2.
> >
> > If folks want to weigh in on that discussion, now's the time. What, if
> > anything, do we as a community want to do to prepare for when it
> eventually
> > happens?
> >
>
>
> --
> Best regards,
> Andrew
>
> Words like orphans lost among the crosstalk, meaning torn from truth's
> decrepit hands
> - A23, Crosstalk
>
Re: [NOTICE] Hadoop project discussing EOL for Hadoop 2.7
Posted by Andrew Purtell <ap...@apache.org>.
We could see what 2.9.2 looks like in terms of suitability and stability.
Is there any reason to look at 2.8 instead of jumping directly to 2.9?
On Thu, Jan 24, 2019 at 1:33 PM Sean Busbey <bu...@apache.org> wrote:
> heads up that the Apache Hadoop project is discussing marking their 2.7
> release line as EOL:
>
> https://s.apache.org/Nm83
>
> Hadoop 2.7.1+ is the most recent Hadoop release line to get the "(y)"
> marker in our Hadoop matrix for HBase branches-1. It's also the earliest
> Hadoop release line to get the same for our HBase branches-2.
>
> If folks want to weigh in on that discussion, now's the time. What, if
> anything, do we as a community want to do to prepare for when it eventually
> happens?
>
--
Best regards,
Andrew
Words like orphans lost among the crosstalk, meaning torn from truth's
decrepit hands
- A23, Crosstalk