You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@hbase.apache.org by lars hofhansl <la...@apache.org> on 2013/09/04 02:30:01 UTC
HBase - stable versions
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
Re: HBase - stable versions
Posted by Doug Meil <do...@explorysmedical.com>.
It's a very good point. Most people will go to 0.96 when CDH and
Hortonworks support it.
On 9/4/13 2:55 PM, "Shahab Yunus" <sh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>This maybe a newbie or dumb question but I believe, this does not affect
>or
>apply to HBase distributions by other vendors like HortonWorks or
>Cloudera.
>If someone is using one of the versions of distributions provided by them
>then it is up to them (and not people and community here) what and till
>when they are going to support it.
>
>Regards,
>Shahab
>
>
>On Wed, Sep 4, 2013 at 1:33 PM, James Taylor <jt...@salesforce.com>
>wrote:
>
>> +1 to what Nicolas said.
>>
>> That goes for Phoenix as well. It's open source too. We do plan to port
>>to
>> 0.96 when our user community (Salesforce.com, of course, being one of
>>them)
>> demands it.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> James
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Sep 4, 2013 at 10:11 AM, Nicolas Liochon <nk...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > It's open source. My personal point of view is that if someone is
>>willing
>> > to spend time on the backport, there should be no issue, if the
>> regression
>> > risk is clearly acceptable & the rolling restart possible. If it's
>> > necessary (i.e. there is no agreement of the risk level), then we
>>could
>> as
>> > well go for a 94.12.1 solution. I don't think we need to create this
>> branch
>> > now: this branch should be created on when and if we cannot find an
>> > agreement on a specific jira.
>> >
>> > Nicolas
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On Wed, Sep 4, 2013 at 6:53 PM, lars hofhansl <la...@apache.org>
>>wrote:
>> >
>> > > I should also explicitly state that we (Salesforce) will stay with
>>0.94
>> > > for the foreseeable future.
>> > >
>> > > We will continue backport fixes that we need. If those are not
>> acceptable
>> > > or accepted into the open source 0.94 branch, they will have to go
>>into
>> > an
>> > > Salesforce internal repository.
>> > > I would really like to avoid that (essentially a fork), so I would
>> offer
>> > > to start having stable tags, i.e. we keep making changes in 0.94.x,
>>and
>> > > declare (say) 0.94.12 stable and have 0.94.12.1, etc, releases (much
>> like
>> > > what is done in Linux)
>> > >
>> > > We also currently have no resources to port Phoenix over to 0.96
>>(but
>> if
>> > > somebody wanted to step up, that would be greatly appreciated, of
>> > course).
>> > >
>> > > Thoughts? Comments? Concerns?
>> > >
>> > > -- Lars
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > ----- Original Message -----
>> > > From: lars hofhansl <la...@apache.org>
>> > > To: hbase-dev <de...@hbase.apache.org>; hbase-user <
>> user@hbase.apache.org>
>> > > Cc:
>> > > Sent: Tuesday, September 3, 2013 5:30 PM
>> > > Subject: HBase - stable versions
>> > >
>> > > 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
>> > >
>> > >
>> >
>>
Re: HBase - stable versions
Posted by Shahab Yunus <sh...@gmail.com>.
This maybe a newbie or dumb question but I believe, this does not affect or
apply to HBase distributions by other vendors like HortonWorks or Cloudera.
If someone is using one of the versions of distributions provided by them
then it is up to them (and not people and community here) what and till
when they are going to support it.
Regards,
Shahab
On Wed, Sep 4, 2013 at 1:33 PM, James Taylor <jt...@salesforce.com> wrote:
> +1 to what Nicolas said.
>
> That goes for Phoenix as well. It's open source too. We do plan to port to
> 0.96 when our user community (Salesforce.com, of course, being one of them)
> demands it.
>
> Thanks,
> James
>
>
> On Wed, Sep 4, 2013 at 10:11 AM, Nicolas Liochon <nk...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > It's open source. My personal point of view is that if someone is willing
> > to spend time on the backport, there should be no issue, if the
> regression
> > risk is clearly acceptable & the rolling restart possible. If it's
> > necessary (i.e. there is no agreement of the risk level), then we could
> as
> > well go for a 94.12.1 solution. I don't think we need to create this
> branch
> > now: this branch should be created on when and if we cannot find an
> > agreement on a specific jira.
> >
> > Nicolas
> >
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Sep 4, 2013 at 6:53 PM, lars hofhansl <la...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> > > I should also explicitly state that we (Salesforce) will stay with 0.94
> > > for the foreseeable future.
> > >
> > > We will continue backport fixes that we need. If those are not
> acceptable
> > > or accepted into the open source 0.94 branch, they will have to go into
> > an
> > > Salesforce internal repository.
> > > I would really like to avoid that (essentially a fork), so I would
> offer
> > > to start having stable tags, i.e. we keep making changes in 0.94.x, and
> > > declare (say) 0.94.12 stable and have 0.94.12.1, etc, releases (much
> like
> > > what is done in Linux)
> > >
> > > We also currently have no resources to port Phoenix over to 0.96 (but
> if
> > > somebody wanted to step up, that would be greatly appreciated, of
> > course).
> > >
> > > Thoughts? Comments? Concerns?
> > >
> > > -- Lars
> > >
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: lars hofhansl <la...@apache.org>
> > > To: hbase-dev <de...@hbase.apache.org>; hbase-user <
> user@hbase.apache.org>
> > > Cc:
> > > Sent: Tuesday, September 3, 2013 5:30 PM
> > > Subject: HBase - stable versions
> > >
> > > 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
> > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: HBase - stable versions
Posted by James Taylor <jt...@salesforce.com>.
+1 to what Nicolas said.
That goes for Phoenix as well. It's open source too. We do plan to port to
0.96 when our user community (Salesforce.com, of course, being one of them)
demands it.
Thanks,
James
On Wed, Sep 4, 2013 at 10:11 AM, Nicolas Liochon <nk...@gmail.com> wrote:
> It's open source. My personal point of view is that if someone is willing
> to spend time on the backport, there should be no issue, if the regression
> risk is clearly acceptable & the rolling restart possible. If it's
> necessary (i.e. there is no agreement of the risk level), then we could as
> well go for a 94.12.1 solution. I don't think we need to create this branch
> now: this branch should be created on when and if we cannot find an
> agreement on a specific jira.
>
> Nicolas
>
>
>
> On Wed, Sep 4, 2013 at 6:53 PM, lars hofhansl <la...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > I should also explicitly state that we (Salesforce) will stay with 0.94
> > for the foreseeable future.
> >
> > We will continue backport fixes that we need. If those are not acceptable
> > or accepted into the open source 0.94 branch, they will have to go into
> an
> > Salesforce internal repository.
> > I would really like to avoid that (essentially a fork), so I would offer
> > to start having stable tags, i.e. we keep making changes in 0.94.x, and
> > declare (say) 0.94.12 stable and have 0.94.12.1, etc, releases (much like
> > what is done in Linux)
> >
> > We also currently have no resources to port Phoenix over to 0.96 (but if
> > somebody wanted to step up, that would be greatly appreciated, of
> course).
> >
> > Thoughts? Comments? Concerns?
> >
> > -- Lars
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: lars hofhansl <la...@apache.org>
> > To: hbase-dev <de...@hbase.apache.org>; hbase-user <us...@hbase.apache.org>
> > Cc:
> > Sent: Tuesday, September 3, 2013 5:30 PM
> > Subject: HBase - stable versions
> >
> > 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
> >
> >
>
Re: HBase - stable versions
Posted by Nicolas Liochon <nk...@gmail.com>.
It's open source. My personal point of view is that if someone is willing
to spend time on the backport, there should be no issue, if the regression
risk is clearly acceptable & the rolling restart possible. If it's
necessary (i.e. there is no agreement of the risk level), then we could as
well go for a 94.12.1 solution. I don't think we need to create this branch
now: this branch should be created on when and if we cannot find an
agreement on a specific jira.
Nicolas
On Wed, Sep 4, 2013 at 6:53 PM, lars hofhansl <la...@apache.org> wrote:
> I should also explicitly state that we (Salesforce) will stay with 0.94
> for the foreseeable future.
>
> We will continue backport fixes that we need. If those are not acceptable
> or accepted into the open source 0.94 branch, they will have to go into an
> Salesforce internal repository.
> I would really like to avoid that (essentially a fork), so I would offer
> to start having stable tags, i.e. we keep making changes in 0.94.x, and
> declare (say) 0.94.12 stable and have 0.94.12.1, etc, releases (much like
> what is done in Linux)
>
> We also currently have no resources to port Phoenix over to 0.96 (but if
> somebody wanted to step up, that would be greatly appreciated, of course).
>
> Thoughts? Comments? Concerns?
>
> -- Lars
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: lars hofhansl <la...@apache.org>
> To: hbase-dev <de...@hbase.apache.org>; hbase-user <us...@hbase.apache.org>
> Cc:
> Sent: Tuesday, September 3, 2013 5:30 PM
> Subject: HBase - stable versions
>
> 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
>
>
Re: HBase - stable versions
Posted by lars hofhansl <la...@apache.org>.
I should also explicitly state that we (Salesforce) will stay with 0.94 for the foreseeable future.
We will continue backport fixes that we need. If those are not acceptable or accepted into the open source 0.94 branch, they will have to go into an Salesforce internal repository.
I would really like to avoid that (essentially a fork), so I would offer to start having stable tags, i.e. we keep making changes in 0.94.x, and declare (say) 0.94.12 stable and have 0.94.12.1, etc, releases (much like what is done in Linux)
We also currently have no resources to port Phoenix over to 0.96 (but if somebody wanted to step up, that would be greatly appreciated, of course).
Thoughts? Comments? Concerns?
-- Lars
----- Original Message -----
From: lars hofhansl <la...@apache.org>
To: hbase-dev <de...@hbase.apache.org>; hbase-user <us...@hbase.apache.org>
Cc:
Sent: Tuesday, September 3, 2013 5:30 PM
Subject: HBase - stable versions
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
Re: HBase - stable versions
Posted by Stack <st...@duboce.net>.
On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 12:50 PM, Kiru Pakkirisamy <
kirupakkirisamy@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Yes, I read that, but I guess Nicolas elaborated this line, which really
> helped - "Our first "Development" Series was the 0.89 set that came out
> ahead of HBase 0.90.0. HBase 0.95 is another "Development" Series that
> portends HBase 0.96.0." :-)
>
Please tell me how the above can be improved (or provide a patch) and I'll
commit.
We need noobs to tell us where our doc is opaque. Us who have been around
too long can't "see" like a noob anymore so we automatically fill in any
gaps unconciously.
Thanks,
St.Ack
Re: HBase - stable versions
Posted by Kiru Pakkirisamy <ki...@yahoo.com>.
Yes, I read that, but I guess Nicolas elaborated this line, which really helped - "Our first "Development" Series was the 0.89 set that came out ahead of HBase 0.90.0. HBase 0.95 is another "Development" Series that portends HBase 0.96.0." :-)
Regards,
- kiru
________________________________
From: Stack <st...@duboce.net>
To: HBase Dev List <de...@hbase.apache.org>; Kiru Pakkirisamy <ki...@yahoo.com>
Sent: Tuesday, September 10, 2013 11:56 AM
Subject: Re: HBase - stable versions
On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 8:59 AM, Kiru Pakkirisamy <ki...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Nicolas, makes sense. Thanks for the explanation.
>
What Nicolas said but here is how its stated in the refguide: http://hbase.apache.org/book.html#hbase.versioning
St.Ack
Re: HBase - stable versions
Posted by Stack <st...@duboce.net>.
On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 8:59 AM, Kiru Pakkirisamy <kirupakkirisamy@yahoo.com
> wrote:
> Nicolas, makes sense. Thanks for the explanation.
>
What Nicolas said but here is how its stated in the refguide:
http://hbase.apache.org/book.html#hbase.versioning
St.Ack
Re: HBase - stable versions
Posted by Vimal Jain <vk...@gmail.com>.
Even we will use 0.94 for foreseeable future.
On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 9:29 PM, Kiru Pakkirisamy <kirupakkirisamy@yahoo.com
> wrote:
> Nicolas, makes sense. Thanks for the explanation.
>
> Regards,
> - kiru
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Nicolas Liochon <nk...@gmail.com>
> To: user <us...@hbase.apache.org>; Kiru Pakkirisamy <
> kirupakkirisamy@yahoo.com>
> Cc: "dev@hbase.apache.org" <de...@hbase.apache.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, September 10, 2013 12:31 AM
> Subject: Re: HBase - stable versions
>
>
> That's linux terminology. 0.95 is a developper release It should not go in
> production. When it's ready for production, it will be released as 0.96
> 0.96 should be ready soon, tests (and fixes are in progress). There is
> already a release candidate available: 0.96.RC0.
> There should be a new release candidate (soon as well :-))
> For details about the 0.96 RC0 see this thread:
> http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.comp.java.hadoop.hbase.devel/39592
>
> Cheers,
>
> Nicolas
>
>
> On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 8:22 AM, Kiru Pakkirisamy <
> kirupakkirisamy@yahoo.com
> > wrote:
>
> > BTW, can somebody explain the function/purpose of 0.95.2. Do the
> community
> > expect 0.95.2 to be used in a prod env or does it have to 0.96.0 for
> that ?
> > Also, I have some development hiccups with it (like cannot find the jar
> on
> > the maven repo etc, if somebody can provide pointers that would be
> great).
> >
> >
> > Regards,
> > - kiru
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: Ameya Kanitkar <am...@groupon.com>
> > To: user@hbase.apache.org; Kiru Pakkirisamy <ki...@yahoo.com>
> > Cc: "dev@hbase.apache.org" <de...@hbase.apache.org>
> > Sent: Monday, September 9, 2013 5:02 PM
> > Subject: Re: HBase - stable versions
> >
> >
> > We (Groupon), will also stick to 0.94 for near future.
> >
> > Ameya
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Sep 9, 2013 at 4:03 PM, Kiru Pakkirisamy
> > <ki...@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 <en...@apache.org>
> > > To: hbase-user <us...@hbase.apache.org>
> > > Cc: "dev@hbase.apache.org" <de...@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 <va...@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 <ap...@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 <la...@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)
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
--
Thanks and Regards,
Vimal Jain
Re: HBase - stable versions
Posted by Vimal Jain <vk...@gmail.com>.
Even we will use 0.94 for foreseeable future.
On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 9:29 PM, Kiru Pakkirisamy <kirupakkirisamy@yahoo.com
> wrote:
> Nicolas, makes sense. Thanks for the explanation.
>
> Regards,
> - kiru
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Nicolas Liochon <nk...@gmail.com>
> To: user <us...@hbase.apache.org>; Kiru Pakkirisamy <
> kirupakkirisamy@yahoo.com>
> Cc: "dev@hbase.apache.org" <de...@hbase.apache.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, September 10, 2013 12:31 AM
> Subject: Re: HBase - stable versions
>
>
> That's linux terminology. 0.95 is a developper release It should not go in
> production. When it's ready for production, it will be released as 0.96
> 0.96 should be ready soon, tests (and fixes are in progress). There is
> already a release candidate available: 0.96.RC0.
> There should be a new release candidate (soon as well :-))
> For details about the 0.96 RC0 see this thread:
> http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.comp.java.hadoop.hbase.devel/39592
>
> Cheers,
>
> Nicolas
>
>
> On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 8:22 AM, Kiru Pakkirisamy <
> kirupakkirisamy@yahoo.com
> > wrote:
>
> > BTW, can somebody explain the function/purpose of 0.95.2. Do the
> community
> > expect 0.95.2 to be used in a prod env or does it have to 0.96.0 for
> that ?
> > Also, I have some development hiccups with it (like cannot find the jar
> on
> > the maven repo etc, if somebody can provide pointers that would be
> great).
> >
> >
> > Regards,
> > - kiru
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: Ameya Kanitkar <am...@groupon.com>
> > To: user@hbase.apache.org; Kiru Pakkirisamy <ki...@yahoo.com>
> > Cc: "dev@hbase.apache.org" <de...@hbase.apache.org>
> > Sent: Monday, September 9, 2013 5:02 PM
> > Subject: Re: HBase - stable versions
> >
> >
> > We (Groupon), will also stick to 0.94 for near future.
> >
> > Ameya
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Sep 9, 2013 at 4:03 PM, Kiru Pakkirisamy
> > <ki...@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 <en...@apache.org>
> > > To: hbase-user <us...@hbase.apache.org>
> > > Cc: "dev@hbase.apache.org" <de...@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 <va...@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 <ap...@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 <la...@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)
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
--
Thanks and Regards,
Vimal Jain
Re: HBase - stable versions
Posted by Kiru Pakkirisamy <ki...@yahoo.com>.
Nicolas, makes sense. Thanks for the explanation.
Regards,
- kiru
________________________________
From: Nicolas Liochon <nk...@gmail.com>
To: user <us...@hbase.apache.org>; Kiru Pakkirisamy <ki...@yahoo.com>
Cc: "dev@hbase.apache.org" <de...@hbase.apache.org>
Sent: Tuesday, September 10, 2013 12:31 AM
Subject: Re: HBase - stable versions
That's linux terminology. 0.95 is a developper release It should not go in
production. When it's ready for production, it will be released as 0.96
0.96 should be ready soon, tests (and fixes are in progress). There is
already a release candidate available: 0.96.RC0.
There should be a new release candidate (soon as well :-))
For details about the 0.96 RC0 see this thread:
http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.comp.java.hadoop.hbase.devel/39592
Cheers,
Nicolas
On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 8:22 AM, Kiru Pakkirisamy <kirupakkirisamy@yahoo.com
> wrote:
> BTW, can somebody explain the function/purpose of 0.95.2. Do the community
> expect 0.95.2 to be used in a prod env or does it have to 0.96.0 for that ?
> Also, I have some development hiccups with it (like cannot find the jar on
> the maven repo etc, if somebody can provide pointers that would be great).
>
>
> Regards,
> - kiru
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Ameya Kanitkar <am...@groupon.com>
> To: user@hbase.apache.org; Kiru Pakkirisamy <ki...@yahoo.com>
> Cc: "dev@hbase.apache.org" <de...@hbase.apache.org>
> Sent: Monday, September 9, 2013 5:02 PM
> Subject: Re: HBase - stable versions
>
>
> We (Groupon), will also stick to 0.94 for near future.
>
> Ameya
>
>
> On Mon, Sep 9, 2013 at 4:03 PM, Kiru Pakkirisamy
> <ki...@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 <en...@apache.org>
> > To: hbase-user <us...@hbase.apache.org>
> > Cc: "dev@hbase.apache.org" <de...@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 <va...@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 <ap...@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 <la...@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)
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: HBase - stable versions
Posted by Kiru Pakkirisamy <ki...@yahoo.com>.
Nicolas, makes sense. Thanks for the explanation.
Regards,
- kiru
________________________________
From: Nicolas Liochon <nk...@gmail.com>
To: user <us...@hbase.apache.org>; Kiru Pakkirisamy <ki...@yahoo.com>
Cc: "dev@hbase.apache.org" <de...@hbase.apache.org>
Sent: Tuesday, September 10, 2013 12:31 AM
Subject: Re: HBase - stable versions
That's linux terminology. 0.95 is a developper release It should not go in
production. When it's ready for production, it will be released as 0.96
0.96 should be ready soon, tests (and fixes are in progress). There is
already a release candidate available: 0.96.RC0.
There should be a new release candidate (soon as well :-))
For details about the 0.96 RC0 see this thread:
http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.comp.java.hadoop.hbase.devel/39592
Cheers,
Nicolas
On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 8:22 AM, Kiru Pakkirisamy <kirupakkirisamy@yahoo.com
> wrote:
> BTW, can somebody explain the function/purpose of 0.95.2. Do the community
> expect 0.95.2 to be used in a prod env or does it have to 0.96.0 for that ?
> Also, I have some development hiccups with it (like cannot find the jar on
> the maven repo etc, if somebody can provide pointers that would be great).
>
>
> Regards,
> - kiru
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Ameya Kanitkar <am...@groupon.com>
> To: user@hbase.apache.org; Kiru Pakkirisamy <ki...@yahoo.com>
> Cc: "dev@hbase.apache.org" <de...@hbase.apache.org>
> Sent: Monday, September 9, 2013 5:02 PM
> Subject: Re: HBase - stable versions
>
>
> We (Groupon), will also stick to 0.94 for near future.
>
> Ameya
>
>
> On Mon, Sep 9, 2013 at 4:03 PM, Kiru Pakkirisamy
> <ki...@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 <en...@apache.org>
> > To: hbase-user <us...@hbase.apache.org>
> > Cc: "dev@hbase.apache.org" <de...@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 <va...@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 <ap...@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 <la...@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)
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: HBase - stable versions
Posted by Nicolas Liochon <nk...@gmail.com>.
That's linux terminology. 0.95 is a developper release It should not go in
production. When it's ready for production, it will be released as 0.96
0.96 should be ready soon, tests (and fixes are in progress). There is
already a release candidate available: 0.96.RC0.
There should be a new release candidate (soon as well :-))
For details about the 0.96 RC0 see this thread:
http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.comp.java.hadoop.hbase.devel/39592
Cheers,
Nicolas
On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 8:22 AM, Kiru Pakkirisamy <kirupakkirisamy@yahoo.com
> wrote:
> BTW, can somebody explain the function/purpose of 0.95.2. Do the community
> expect 0.95.2 to be used in a prod env or does it have to 0.96.0 for that ?
> Also, I have some development hiccups with it (like cannot find the jar on
> the maven repo etc, if somebody can provide pointers that would be great).
>
>
> Regards,
> - kiru
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Ameya Kanitkar <am...@groupon.com>
> To: user@hbase.apache.org; Kiru Pakkirisamy <ki...@yahoo.com>
> Cc: "dev@hbase.apache.org" <de...@hbase.apache.org>
> Sent: Monday, September 9, 2013 5:02 PM
> Subject: Re: HBase - stable versions
>
>
> We (Groupon), will also stick to 0.94 for near future.
>
> Ameya
>
>
> On Mon, Sep 9, 2013 at 4:03 PM, Kiru Pakkirisamy
> <ki...@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 <en...@apache.org>
> > To: hbase-user <us...@hbase.apache.org>
> > Cc: "dev@hbase.apache.org" <de...@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 <va...@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 <ap...@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 <la...@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)
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: HBase - stable versions
Posted by Nicolas Liochon <nk...@gmail.com>.
That's linux terminology. 0.95 is a developper release It should not go in
production. When it's ready for production, it will be released as 0.96
0.96 should be ready soon, tests (and fixes are in progress). There is
already a release candidate available: 0.96.RC0.
There should be a new release candidate (soon as well :-))
For details about the 0.96 RC0 see this thread:
http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.comp.java.hadoop.hbase.devel/39592
Cheers,
Nicolas
On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 8:22 AM, Kiru Pakkirisamy <kirupakkirisamy@yahoo.com
> wrote:
> BTW, can somebody explain the function/purpose of 0.95.2. Do the community
> expect 0.95.2 to be used in a prod env or does it have to 0.96.0 for that ?
> Also, I have some development hiccups with it (like cannot find the jar on
> the maven repo etc, if somebody can provide pointers that would be great).
>
>
> Regards,
> - kiru
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Ameya Kanitkar <am...@groupon.com>
> To: user@hbase.apache.org; Kiru Pakkirisamy <ki...@yahoo.com>
> Cc: "dev@hbase.apache.org" <de...@hbase.apache.org>
> Sent: Monday, September 9, 2013 5:02 PM
> Subject: Re: HBase - stable versions
>
>
> We (Groupon), will also stick to 0.94 for near future.
>
> Ameya
>
>
> On Mon, Sep 9, 2013 at 4:03 PM, Kiru Pakkirisamy
> <ki...@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 <en...@apache.org>
> > To: hbase-user <us...@hbase.apache.org>
> > Cc: "dev@hbase.apache.org" <de...@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 <va...@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 <ap...@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 <la...@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)
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: HBase - stable versions
Posted by Kiru Pakkirisamy <ki...@yahoo.com>.
BTW, can somebody explain the function/purpose of 0.95.2. Do the community expect 0.95.2 to be used in a prod env or does it have to 0.96.0 for that ? Also, I have some development hiccups with it (like cannot find the jar on the maven repo etc, if somebody can provide pointers that would be great).
Regards,
- kiru
________________________________
From: Ameya Kanitkar <am...@groupon.com>
To: user@hbase.apache.org; Kiru Pakkirisamy <ki...@yahoo.com>
Cc: "dev@hbase.apache.org" <de...@hbase.apache.org>
Sent: Monday, September 9, 2013 5:02 PM
Subject: Re: HBase - stable versions
We (Groupon), will also stick to 0.94 for near future.
Ameya
On Mon, Sep 9, 2013 at 4:03 PM, Kiru Pakkirisamy
<ki...@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 <en...@apache.org>
> To: hbase-user <us...@hbase.apache.org>
> Cc: "dev@hbase.apache.org" <de...@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 <va...@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 <ap...@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 <la...@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)
> > >
> >
>
Re: HBase - stable versions
Posted by Kiru Pakkirisamy <ki...@yahoo.com>.
BTW, can somebody explain the function/purpose of 0.95.2. Do the community expect 0.95.2 to be used in a prod env or does it have to 0.96.0 for that ? Also, I have some development hiccups with it (like cannot find the jar on the maven repo etc, if somebody can provide pointers that would be great).
Regards,
- kiru
________________________________
From: Ameya Kanitkar <am...@groupon.com>
To: user@hbase.apache.org; Kiru Pakkirisamy <ki...@yahoo.com>
Cc: "dev@hbase.apache.org" <de...@hbase.apache.org>
Sent: Monday, September 9, 2013 5:02 PM
Subject: Re: HBase - stable versions
We (Groupon), will also stick to 0.94 for near future.
Ameya
On Mon, Sep 9, 2013 at 4:03 PM, Kiru Pakkirisamy
<ki...@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 <en...@apache.org>
> To: hbase-user <us...@hbase.apache.org>
> Cc: "dev@hbase.apache.org" <de...@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 <va...@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 <ap...@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 <la...@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)
> > >
> >
>
Re: HBase - stable versions
Posted by Ameya Kanitkar <am...@groupon.com>.
We (Groupon), will also stick to 0.94 for near future.
Ameya
On Mon, Sep 9, 2013 at 4:03 PM, Kiru Pakkirisamy
<ki...@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 <en...@apache.org>
> To: hbase-user <us...@hbase.apache.org>
> Cc: "dev@hbase.apache.org" <de...@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 <va...@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 <ap...@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 <la...@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)
> > >
> >
>
Re: HBase - stable versions
Posted by Ameya Kanitkar <am...@groupon.com>.
We (Groupon), will also stick to 0.94 for near future.
Ameya
On Mon, Sep 9, 2013 at 4:03 PM, Kiru Pakkirisamy
<ki...@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 <en...@apache.org>
> To: hbase-user <us...@hbase.apache.org>
> Cc: "dev@hbase.apache.org" <de...@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 <va...@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 <ap...@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 <la...@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)
> > >
> >
>
Re: HBase - stable versions
Posted by Kiru Pakkirisamy <ki...@yahoo.com>.
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 <en...@apache.org>
To: hbase-user <us...@hbase.apache.org>
Cc: "dev@hbase.apache.org" <de...@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 <va...@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 <ap...@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 <la...@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)
> >
>
Re: HBase - stable versions
Posted by Kiru Pakkirisamy <ki...@yahoo.com>.
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 <en...@apache.org>
To: hbase-user <us...@hbase.apache.org>
Cc: "dev@hbase.apache.org" <de...@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 <va...@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 <ap...@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 <la...@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)
> >
>
Re: HBase - stable versions
Posted by Enis Söztutar <en...@apache.org>.
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 <va...@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 <ap...@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 <la...@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)
> >
>
Re: HBase - stable versions
Posted by Enis Söztutar <en...@apache.org>.
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 <va...@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 <ap...@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 <la...@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)
> >
>
Re: HBase - stable versions
Posted by Varun Sharma <va...@pinterest.com>.
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 <ap...@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 <la...@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)
>
Re: HBase - stable versions
Posted by Varun Sharma <va...@pinterest.com>.
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 <ap...@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 <la...@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)
>
Re: HBase - stable versions
Posted by Andrew Purtell <ap...@apache.org>.
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 <la...@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)
Re: HBase - stable versions
Posted by anil gupta <an...@gmail.com>.
We are using 0.94 and at present we are satisfied with it.
On Tue, Sep 3, 2013 at 7:39 PM, Jean-Marc Spaggiari <jean-marc@spaggiari.org
> wrote:
> Hi Lars,
>
> Thanks for starting the discussion.
>
> My 2¢:
> I think we should keep 0.94 going for at least few minor releases. To apply
> big fixes and performances fixes. However, new features should only go into
> 0.96 and should now not be backported anymore. That way we can keep 0,94
> stable, but we can also encourage people to move to 0.96.
>
> I personnaly have a 0.94 cluster that I will keep for few more month
> because I don't have the ressouces to test the 0.96 migration yet. I guess
> I'm not the only one in that situation. Many will want to see 0.96 being
> 0.96.3 or more before starting the migration...
>
> I will not set a specific period of time for 0.94 to be maintain, but more
> looking at the number of fixes done, and the interest for it, and
> re-evaluate in few month.
>
> JM
>
>
> 2013/9/3 lars hofhansl <la...@apache.org>
>
> > 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
> >
>
--
Thanks & Regards,
Anil Gupta
Re: HBase - stable versions
Posted by Jean-Marc Spaggiari <je...@spaggiari.org>.
Hi Lars,
Thanks for starting the discussion.
My 2¢:
I think we should keep 0.94 going for at least few minor releases. To apply
big fixes and performances fixes. However, new features should only go into
0.96 and should now not be backported anymore. That way we can keep 0,94
stable, but we can also encourage people to move to 0.96.
I personnaly have a 0.94 cluster that I will keep for few more month
because I don't have the ressouces to test the 0.96 migration yet. I guess
I'm not the only one in that situation. Many will want to see 0.96 being
0.96.3 or more before starting the migration...
I will not set a specific period of time for 0.94 to be maintain, but more
looking at the number of fixes done, and the interest for it, and
re-evaluate in few month.
JM
2013/9/3 lars hofhansl <la...@apache.org>
> 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
>
Re: HBase - stable versions
Posted by Jean-Marc Spaggiari <je...@spaggiari.org>.
Hi Lars,
Thanks for starting the discussion.
My 2¢:
I think we should keep 0.94 going for at least few minor releases. To apply
big fixes and performances fixes. However, new features should only go into
0.96 and should now not be backported anymore. That way we can keep 0,94
stable, but we can also encourage people to move to 0.96.
I personnaly have a 0.94 cluster that I will keep for few more month
because I don't have the ressouces to test the 0.96 migration yet. I guess
I'm not the only one in that situation. Many will want to see 0.96 being
0.96.3 or more before starting the migration...
I will not set a specific period of time for 0.94 to be maintain, but more
looking at the number of fixes done, and the interest for it, and
re-evaluate in few month.
JM
2013/9/3 lars hofhansl <la...@apache.org>
> 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
>
Re: HBase - stable versions
Posted by lars hofhansl <la...@apache.org>.
I should also explicitly state that we (Salesforce) will stay with 0.94 for the foreseeable future.
We will continue backport fixes that we need. If those are not acceptable or accepted into the open source 0.94 branch, they will have to go into an Salesforce internal repository.
I would really like to avoid that (essentially a fork), so I would offer to start having stable tags, i.e. we keep making changes in 0.94.x, and declare (say) 0.94.12 stable and have 0.94.12.1, etc, releases (much like what is done in Linux)
We also currently have no resources to port Phoenix over to 0.96 (but if somebody wanted to step up, that would be greatly appreciated, of course).
Thoughts? Comments? Concerns?
-- Lars
----- Original Message -----
From: lars hofhansl <la...@apache.org>
To: hbase-dev <de...@hbase.apache.org>; hbase-user <us...@hbase.apache.org>
Cc:
Sent: Tuesday, September 3, 2013 5:30 PM
Subject: HBase - stable versions
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
Re: HBase - stable versions
Posted by Andrew Purtell <ap...@apache.org>.
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 <la...@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)