You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@hbase.apache.org by Andrew Purtell <ap...@apache.org> on 2014/10/31 18:56:37 UTC
[DISCUSSION] Dropping support for Hadoop 1.0 in 0.98
Hadoop 1.0 is an ancient, and I believe dead, version that certainly nobody
should use today. We have a chronic problem on the 0.98 branch with changes
tested on only Hadoop 2 later are found to break builds against Hadoop 1,
since only 0.94 and 0.98 still support Hadoop 1.x. See
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-12397 as an example. This issue
also illustrates that dropping support for 1.0 while retaining support for
1.1 and later versions of Hadoop 1.x can reduce cross-version compatibility
complexity for at least the API involved in that issue, and certainly
others. This in my opinion is a good thing.
--
Best regards,
- Andy
Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet Hein
(via Tom White)
Re: [DISCUSSION] Dropping support for Hadoop 1.0 in 0.98
Posted by Nicolas Liochon <nk...@gmail.com>.
+1
Le 31 oct. 2014 23:49, "Andrew Purtell" <ap...@apache.org> a écrit :
> Based on the positive responses thus far, and unless we see an objection
> between now and then, I plan to resolve HBASE-12397 next week by removing
> support in 0.98 branch for Hadoop 1.0 (but not Hadoop 1.1) in time for
> release 0.98.8.
>
> On Fri, Oct 31, 2014 at 3:34 PM, Ted Yu <yu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Adding user@.
> >
> > I would +1 this motion.
> >
> > On Fri, Oct 31, 2014 at 12:18 PM, Sean Busbey <bu...@cloudera.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > > +1, presuming we wouldn't change our position on hadoop 1.0 for 0.94.
> > >
> > > For the curious, here is the full support matrix Andrew is referencing:
> > > http://hbase.apache.org/book.html#d0e1440
> > >
> > > On Fri, Oct 31, 2014 at 1:13 PM, Andrew Purtell <ap...@apache.org>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > No, we'll still need a -hadoop1 and -hadoop2 munged build of 0.98.
> I'm
> > > only
> > > > suggesting removing support for version 1.0. Other version 1.x would
> > > remain
> > > > active in the compatibility list.
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, Oct 31, 2014 at 11:01 AM, Konstantin Boudnik <cos@apache.org
> >
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Absolutely makes sense! it will make a lot of things easier,
> really.
> > > The
> > > > > infamous need for classifiers will finally go away!
> > > > >
> > > > > On Fri, Oct 31, 2014 at 10:56AM, Andrew Purtell wrote:
> > > > > > Hadoop 1.0 is an ancient, and I believe dead, version that
> > certainly
> > > > > nobody
> > > > > > should use today. We have a chronic problem on the 0.98 branch
> with
> > > > > changes
> > > > > > tested on only Hadoop 2 later are found to break builds against
> > > Hadoop
> > > > 1,
> > > > > > since only 0.94 and 0.98 still support Hadoop 1.x. See
> > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-12397 as an example.
> > > This
> > > > > issue
> > > > > > also illustrates that dropping support for 1.0 while retaining
> > > support
> > > > > for
> > > > > > 1.1 and later versions of Hadoop 1.x can reduce cross-version
> > > > > compatibility
> > > > > > complexity for at least the API involved in that issue, and
> > certainly
> > > > > > others. This in my opinion is a good thing.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > 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)
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Sean
> > >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Best regards,
>
> - Andy
>
> Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet Hein
> (via Tom White)
>
Re: [DISCUSSION] Dropping support for Hadoop 1.0 in 0.98
Posted by Nicolas Liochon <nk...@gmail.com>.
+1
Le 31 oct. 2014 23:49, "Andrew Purtell" <ap...@apache.org> a écrit :
> Based on the positive responses thus far, and unless we see an objection
> between now and then, I plan to resolve HBASE-12397 next week by removing
> support in 0.98 branch for Hadoop 1.0 (but not Hadoop 1.1) in time for
> release 0.98.8.
>
> On Fri, Oct 31, 2014 at 3:34 PM, Ted Yu <yu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Adding user@.
> >
> > I would +1 this motion.
> >
> > On Fri, Oct 31, 2014 at 12:18 PM, Sean Busbey <bu...@cloudera.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > > +1, presuming we wouldn't change our position on hadoop 1.0 for 0.94.
> > >
> > > For the curious, here is the full support matrix Andrew is referencing:
> > > http://hbase.apache.org/book.html#d0e1440
> > >
> > > On Fri, Oct 31, 2014 at 1:13 PM, Andrew Purtell <ap...@apache.org>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > No, we'll still need a -hadoop1 and -hadoop2 munged build of 0.98.
> I'm
> > > only
> > > > suggesting removing support for version 1.0. Other version 1.x would
> > > remain
> > > > active in the compatibility list.
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, Oct 31, 2014 at 11:01 AM, Konstantin Boudnik <cos@apache.org
> >
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Absolutely makes sense! it will make a lot of things easier,
> really.
> > > The
> > > > > infamous need for classifiers will finally go away!
> > > > >
> > > > > On Fri, Oct 31, 2014 at 10:56AM, Andrew Purtell wrote:
> > > > > > Hadoop 1.0 is an ancient, and I believe dead, version that
> > certainly
> > > > > nobody
> > > > > > should use today. We have a chronic problem on the 0.98 branch
> with
> > > > > changes
> > > > > > tested on only Hadoop 2 later are found to break builds against
> > > Hadoop
> > > > 1,
> > > > > > since only 0.94 and 0.98 still support Hadoop 1.x. See
> > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-12397 as an example.
> > > This
> > > > > issue
> > > > > > also illustrates that dropping support for 1.0 while retaining
> > > support
> > > > > for
> > > > > > 1.1 and later versions of Hadoop 1.x can reduce cross-version
> > > > > compatibility
> > > > > > complexity for at least the API involved in that issue, and
> > certainly
> > > > > > others. This in my opinion is a good thing.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > 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)
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Sean
> > >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Best regards,
>
> - Andy
>
> Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet Hein
> (via Tom White)
>
Re: [DISCUSSION] Dropping support for Hadoop 1.0 in 0.98
Posted by Andrew Purtell <ap...@apache.org>.
Based on the positive responses thus far, and unless we see an objection
between now and then, I plan to resolve HBASE-12397 next week by removing
support in 0.98 branch for Hadoop 1.0 (but not Hadoop 1.1) in time for
release 0.98.8.
On Fri, Oct 31, 2014 at 3:34 PM, Ted Yu <yu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Adding user@.
>
> I would +1 this motion.
>
> On Fri, Oct 31, 2014 at 12:18 PM, Sean Busbey <bu...@cloudera.com> wrote:
>
> > +1, presuming we wouldn't change our position on hadoop 1.0 for 0.94.
> >
> > For the curious, here is the full support matrix Andrew is referencing:
> > http://hbase.apache.org/book.html#d0e1440
> >
> > On Fri, Oct 31, 2014 at 1:13 PM, Andrew Purtell <ap...@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > No, we'll still need a -hadoop1 and -hadoop2 munged build of 0.98. I'm
> > only
> > > suggesting removing support for version 1.0. Other version 1.x would
> > remain
> > > active in the compatibility list.
> > >
> > > On Fri, Oct 31, 2014 at 11:01 AM, Konstantin Boudnik <co...@apache.org>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Absolutely makes sense! it will make a lot of things easier, really.
> > The
> > > > infamous need for classifiers will finally go away!
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, Oct 31, 2014 at 10:56AM, Andrew Purtell wrote:
> > > > > Hadoop 1.0 is an ancient, and I believe dead, version that
> certainly
> > > > nobody
> > > > > should use today. We have a chronic problem on the 0.98 branch with
> > > > changes
> > > > > tested on only Hadoop 2 later are found to break builds against
> > Hadoop
> > > 1,
> > > > > since only 0.94 and 0.98 still support Hadoop 1.x. See
> > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-12397 as an example.
> > This
> > > > issue
> > > > > also illustrates that dropping support for 1.0 while retaining
> > support
> > > > for
> > > > > 1.1 and later versions of Hadoop 1.x can reduce cross-version
> > > > compatibility
> > > > > complexity for at least the API involved in that issue, and
> certainly
> > > > > others. This in my opinion is a good thing.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > 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)
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Sean
> >
>
--
Best regards,
- Andy
Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet Hein
(via Tom White)
Re: [DISCUSSION] Dropping support for Hadoop 1.0 in 0.98
Posted by Andrew Purtell <ap...@apache.org>.
Based on the positive responses thus far, and unless we see an objection
between now and then, I plan to resolve HBASE-12397 next week by removing
support in 0.98 branch for Hadoop 1.0 (but not Hadoop 1.1) in time for
release 0.98.8.
On Fri, Oct 31, 2014 at 3:34 PM, Ted Yu <yu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Adding user@.
>
> I would +1 this motion.
>
> On Fri, Oct 31, 2014 at 12:18 PM, Sean Busbey <bu...@cloudera.com> wrote:
>
> > +1, presuming we wouldn't change our position on hadoop 1.0 for 0.94.
> >
> > For the curious, here is the full support matrix Andrew is referencing:
> > http://hbase.apache.org/book.html#d0e1440
> >
> > On Fri, Oct 31, 2014 at 1:13 PM, Andrew Purtell <ap...@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > No, we'll still need a -hadoop1 and -hadoop2 munged build of 0.98. I'm
> > only
> > > suggesting removing support for version 1.0. Other version 1.x would
> > remain
> > > active in the compatibility list.
> > >
> > > On Fri, Oct 31, 2014 at 11:01 AM, Konstantin Boudnik <co...@apache.org>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Absolutely makes sense! it will make a lot of things easier, really.
> > The
> > > > infamous need for classifiers will finally go away!
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, Oct 31, 2014 at 10:56AM, Andrew Purtell wrote:
> > > > > Hadoop 1.0 is an ancient, and I believe dead, version that
> certainly
> > > > nobody
> > > > > should use today. We have a chronic problem on the 0.98 branch with
> > > > changes
> > > > > tested on only Hadoop 2 later are found to break builds against
> > Hadoop
> > > 1,
> > > > > since only 0.94 and 0.98 still support Hadoop 1.x. See
> > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-12397 as an example.
> > This
> > > > issue
> > > > > also illustrates that dropping support for 1.0 while retaining
> > support
> > > > for
> > > > > 1.1 and later versions of Hadoop 1.x can reduce cross-version
> > > > compatibility
> > > > > complexity for at least the API involved in that issue, and
> certainly
> > > > > others. This in my opinion is a good thing.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > 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)
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Sean
> >
>
--
Best regards,
- Andy
Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet Hein
(via Tom White)
Re: [DISCUSSION] Dropping support for Hadoop 1.0 in 0.98
Posted by Ted Yu <yu...@gmail.com>.
Adding user@.
I would +1 this motion.
On Fri, Oct 31, 2014 at 12:18 PM, Sean Busbey <bu...@cloudera.com> wrote:
> +1, presuming we wouldn't change our position on hadoop 1.0 for 0.94.
>
> For the curious, here is the full support matrix Andrew is referencing:
> http://hbase.apache.org/book.html#d0e1440
>
> On Fri, Oct 31, 2014 at 1:13 PM, Andrew Purtell <ap...@apache.org>
> wrote:
>
> > No, we'll still need a -hadoop1 and -hadoop2 munged build of 0.98. I'm
> only
> > suggesting removing support for version 1.0. Other version 1.x would
> remain
> > active in the compatibility list.
> >
> > On Fri, Oct 31, 2014 at 11:01 AM, Konstantin Boudnik <co...@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Absolutely makes sense! it will make a lot of things easier, really.
> The
> > > infamous need for classifiers will finally go away!
> > >
> > > On Fri, Oct 31, 2014 at 10:56AM, Andrew Purtell wrote:
> > > > Hadoop 1.0 is an ancient, and I believe dead, version that certainly
> > > nobody
> > > > should use today. We have a chronic problem on the 0.98 branch with
> > > changes
> > > > tested on only Hadoop 2 later are found to break builds against
> Hadoop
> > 1,
> > > > since only 0.94 and 0.98 still support Hadoop 1.x. See
> > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-12397 as an example.
> This
> > > issue
> > > > also illustrates that dropping support for 1.0 while retaining
> support
> > > for
> > > > 1.1 and later versions of Hadoop 1.x can reduce cross-version
> > > compatibility
> > > > complexity for at least the API involved in that issue, and certainly
> > > > others. This in my opinion is a good thing.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > 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)
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Sean
>
Re: [DISCUSSION] Dropping support for Hadoop 1.0 in 0.98
Posted by Ted Yu <yu...@gmail.com>.
Adding user@.
I would +1 this motion.
On Fri, Oct 31, 2014 at 12:18 PM, Sean Busbey <bu...@cloudera.com> wrote:
> +1, presuming we wouldn't change our position on hadoop 1.0 for 0.94.
>
> For the curious, here is the full support matrix Andrew is referencing:
> http://hbase.apache.org/book.html#d0e1440
>
> On Fri, Oct 31, 2014 at 1:13 PM, Andrew Purtell <ap...@apache.org>
> wrote:
>
> > No, we'll still need a -hadoop1 and -hadoop2 munged build of 0.98. I'm
> only
> > suggesting removing support for version 1.0. Other version 1.x would
> remain
> > active in the compatibility list.
> >
> > On Fri, Oct 31, 2014 at 11:01 AM, Konstantin Boudnik <co...@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Absolutely makes sense! it will make a lot of things easier, really.
> The
> > > infamous need for classifiers will finally go away!
> > >
> > > On Fri, Oct 31, 2014 at 10:56AM, Andrew Purtell wrote:
> > > > Hadoop 1.0 is an ancient, and I believe dead, version that certainly
> > > nobody
> > > > should use today. We have a chronic problem on the 0.98 branch with
> > > changes
> > > > tested on only Hadoop 2 later are found to break builds against
> Hadoop
> > 1,
> > > > since only 0.94 and 0.98 still support Hadoop 1.x. See
> > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-12397 as an example.
> This
> > > issue
> > > > also illustrates that dropping support for 1.0 while retaining
> support
> > > for
> > > > 1.1 and later versions of Hadoop 1.x can reduce cross-version
> > > compatibility
> > > > complexity for at least the API involved in that issue, and certainly
> > > > others. This in my opinion is a good thing.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > 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)
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Sean
>
Re: [DISCUSSION] Dropping support for Hadoop 1.0 in 0.98
Posted by Sean Busbey <bu...@cloudera.com>.
+1, presuming we wouldn't change our position on hadoop 1.0 for 0.94.
For the curious, here is the full support matrix Andrew is referencing:
http://hbase.apache.org/book.html#d0e1440
On Fri, Oct 31, 2014 at 1:13 PM, Andrew Purtell <ap...@apache.org> wrote:
> No, we'll still need a -hadoop1 and -hadoop2 munged build of 0.98. I'm only
> suggesting removing support for version 1.0. Other version 1.x would remain
> active in the compatibility list.
>
> On Fri, Oct 31, 2014 at 11:01 AM, Konstantin Boudnik <co...@apache.org>
> wrote:
>
> > Absolutely makes sense! it will make a lot of things easier, really. The
> > infamous need for classifiers will finally go away!
> >
> > On Fri, Oct 31, 2014 at 10:56AM, Andrew Purtell wrote:
> > > Hadoop 1.0 is an ancient, and I believe dead, version that certainly
> > nobody
> > > should use today. We have a chronic problem on the 0.98 branch with
> > changes
> > > tested on only Hadoop 2 later are found to break builds against Hadoop
> 1,
> > > since only 0.94 and 0.98 still support Hadoop 1.x. See
> > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-12397 as an example. This
> > issue
> > > also illustrates that dropping support for 1.0 while retaining support
> > for
> > > 1.1 and later versions of Hadoop 1.x can reduce cross-version
> > compatibility
> > > complexity for at least the API involved in that issue, and certainly
> > > others. This in my opinion is a good thing.
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > 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)
>
--
Sean
Re: [DISCUSSION] Dropping support for Hadoop 1.0 in 0.98
Posted by Andrew Purtell <ap...@apache.org>.
No, we'll still need a -hadoop1 and -hadoop2 munged build of 0.98. I'm only
suggesting removing support for version 1.0. Other version 1.x would remain
active in the compatibility list.
On Fri, Oct 31, 2014 at 11:01 AM, Konstantin Boudnik <co...@apache.org> wrote:
> Absolutely makes sense! it will make a lot of things easier, really. The
> infamous need for classifiers will finally go away!
>
> On Fri, Oct 31, 2014 at 10:56AM, Andrew Purtell wrote:
> > Hadoop 1.0 is an ancient, and I believe dead, version that certainly
> nobody
> > should use today. We have a chronic problem on the 0.98 branch with
> changes
> > tested on only Hadoop 2 later are found to break builds against Hadoop 1,
> > since only 0.94 and 0.98 still support Hadoop 1.x. See
> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-12397 as an example. This
> issue
> > also illustrates that dropping support for 1.0 while retaining support
> for
> > 1.1 and later versions of Hadoop 1.x can reduce cross-version
> compatibility
> > complexity for at least the API involved in that issue, and certainly
> > others. This in my opinion is a good thing.
> >
> >
> > --
> > 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)
Re: [DISCUSSION] Dropping support for Hadoop 1.0 in 0.98
Posted by Konstantin Boudnik <co...@apache.org>.
Absolutely makes sense! it will make a lot of things easier, really. The
infamous need for classifiers will finally go away!
On Fri, Oct 31, 2014 at 10:56AM, Andrew Purtell wrote:
> Hadoop 1.0 is an ancient, and I believe dead, version that certainly nobody
> should use today. We have a chronic problem on the 0.98 branch with changes
> tested on only Hadoop 2 later are found to break builds against Hadoop 1,
> since only 0.94 and 0.98 still support Hadoop 1.x. See
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-12397 as an example. This issue
> also illustrates that dropping support for 1.0 while retaining support for
> 1.1 and later versions of Hadoop 1.x can reduce cross-version compatibility
> complexity for at least the API involved in that issue, and certainly
> others. This in my opinion is a good thing.
>
>
> --
> Best regards,
>
> - Andy
>
> Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet Hein
> (via Tom White)