You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@hbase.apache.org by Stack <st...@duboce.net> on 2012/10/01 23:14:16 UTC
0.96.0
I'm trying to put a fence around the 0.96.0 release. I've done a few
passes but there are still way too many issues filed against it.
Please review and move out what you think can wait untill 0.98 [1].
I'm thinking blockers and criticals should make 0.96 and no more.
The main attributes of 0.96.0 as I see it are:
+ Protobufs anywhere we persist (to the filesystem, to zookeeper, over
the wire, etc.)
+ Hadoop 1.0.0 is a requirement
+ You can run 0.96 on Hadoop 2.0.x
+ Runs on jdk7
+ All tests pass most of the time (instead of what we currently have
where unit tests all pass on rare occasion)
What else?
+ Snapshots?
Thanks,
St.Ack
1. https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE/fixforversion/12320040#selectedTab=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.project%3Aversion-issues-panel
Re: 0.96.0
Posted by Jesse Yates <je...@gmail.com>.
Agreed. And maybe consider rolling in the other jiras that rely on it, e.g.
HBASE-5815, etc.?
-------------------
Jesse Yates
@jesse_yates
jyates.github.com
On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 3:10 PM, Jonathan Hsieh <jo...@cloudera.com> wrote:
> +1 for doing it now for 0.96.
>
> On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 3:08 PM, lars hofhansl <lh...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Slightly unrelated. ZooKeeper 3.4.4 was declared stable. Should we
> require
> > that for 0.96 (to get multi and simplify some code, etc), or delay that
> to
> > 0.98 or later?
> >
> >
> > -- Lars
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Matt Corgan <mc...@hotpads.com>
> > To: dev@hbase.apache.org
> > Cc:
> > Sent: Monday, October 1, 2012 3:00 PM
> > Subject: Re: 0.96.0
> >
> > I'll keep debugging PrefixTree stuff in my spare time to try to get it in
> > as experimental. I think it's down to the last couple bugs but hard to
> > know for sure. It's fairly non-invasive being just another
> > DataBlockEncoding, so can't hurt people who don't turn it on.
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 2:26 PM, Jonathan Hsieh <jo...@cloudera.com> wrote:
> >
> > > On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 2:25 PM, Jesse Yates <je...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > > + Snapshots?
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > I'd like to get it in - currently dependent on getting reviews :)
> > > Currently
> > > > working on the upper tiers to get them cranking on the refactored 3PC
> > > code
> > >
> > >
> > > I'm getting on this -- was out for a chunk of last week.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > // Jonathan Hsieh (shay)
> > > // Software Engineer, Cloudera
> > > // jon@cloudera.com
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> // Jonathan Hsieh (shay)
> // Software Engineer, Cloudera
> // jon@cloudera.com
>
Re: 0.96.0
Posted by Stack <st...@duboce.net>.
On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 3:24 PM, lars hofhansl <lh...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> You mean as build time dependency, right? (Not sure now)
>
> I think we have said in the past it's not a runtime dependency.
>
Yeah, that was the past. I'm asking if it should be a runtime
dependency for 0.96 forward?
If we do require it as a runtime dependency, then there needs to be
good reasons (one such is you need 3.4 to run secure hbase IIRC -- but
insecure doesn't require 3.4). Requiring folks update to 3.4 when
they update their hbase is a little obnoxious; we should have good
reason for it if we require it of them.
St.Ack
Re: 0.96.0
Posted by Stack <st...@duboce.net>.
I added all the above to the description of the 0.96.0 release so that
means for sure it'll include them all, right?
See https://issues.apache.org/jira/plugins/servlet/project-config/HBASE/versions
St.Ack
On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 5:58 PM, Otis Gospodnetic
<ot...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I'd love to see all the metrics2 work in, too.
>
> Otis
> --
> Search Analytics - http://sematext.com/search-analytics/index.html
> Performance Monitoring - http://sematext.com/spm/index.html
>
>
> On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 7:24 PM, Elliott Clark <ec...@apache.org> wrote:
>> That last little bit of Metrics migration to Metrics2 (hbase-4050) should
>> probably go in so that we're not straddling the different versions.
>>
>> On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 3:38 PM, Andrew Purtell <ap...@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>>> This depends on if the master changes that use ZK multi ops will go in as
>>> an option that can be toggled by config, or as a replacement?
>>>
>>> If you run secure clusters then 3.4.5 (with ZOOKEEPER-1550) is what you
>>> want to use regardless.
>>>
>>> On Tuesday, October 2, 2012, lars hofhansl wrote:
>>>
>>> > You mean as build time dependency, right? (Not sure now)
>>> >
>>> > I think we have said in the past it's not a runtime dependency.
>>> >
>>> > Yeah, what I was trying to say was to require ZK 3.4.4 to run HBase.
>>> > Maybe 0.96 is too early for that, because we probably do not want to file
>>> > more jiras against to remove now obsolete related code.
>>> >
>>> > -- Lars
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > ----- Original Message -----
>>> > From: Stack <stack@duboce.net <javascript:;>>
>>> > To: dev@hbase.apache.org <javascript:;>
>>> > Cc: lars hofhansl <lhofhansl@yahoo.com <javascript:;>>
>>> > Sent: Monday, October 1, 2012 3:19 PM
>>> > Subject: Re: 0.96.0
>>> >
>>> > On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 3:10 PM, Jonathan Hsieh <jon@cloudera.com
>>> <javascript:;>>
>>> > wrote:
>>> > > +1 for doing it now for 0.96.
>>> > >
>>> >
>>> > We already have 3.4.4 as dependency.
>>> >
>>> > But sounds like we are saying that when you upgrade your hbase to
>>> > 0.96, you need to also update your zk to 3.4.4 because hbase wants to
>>> > use 3.4 zk features? Is that what we're saying?
>>> >
>>> > Good stuff,
>>> > St.Ack
>>> >
>>> >
>>>
>>> --
>>> Best regards,
>>>
>>> - Andy
>>>
>>> Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet Hein
>>> (via Tom White)
>>>
Re: 0.96.0
Posted by Otis Gospodnetic <ot...@gmail.com>.
I'd love to see all the metrics2 work in, too.
Otis
--
Search Analytics - http://sematext.com/search-analytics/index.html
Performance Monitoring - http://sematext.com/spm/index.html
On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 7:24 PM, Elliott Clark <ec...@apache.org> wrote:
> That last little bit of Metrics migration to Metrics2 (hbase-4050) should
> probably go in so that we're not straddling the different versions.
>
> On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 3:38 PM, Andrew Purtell <ap...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> This depends on if the master changes that use ZK multi ops will go in as
>> an option that can be toggled by config, or as a replacement?
>>
>> If you run secure clusters then 3.4.5 (with ZOOKEEPER-1550) is what you
>> want to use regardless.
>>
>> On Tuesday, October 2, 2012, lars hofhansl wrote:
>>
>> > You mean as build time dependency, right? (Not sure now)
>> >
>> > I think we have said in the past it's not a runtime dependency.
>> >
>> > Yeah, what I was trying to say was to require ZK 3.4.4 to run HBase.
>> > Maybe 0.96 is too early for that, because we probably do not want to file
>> > more jiras against to remove now obsolete related code.
>> >
>> > -- Lars
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > ----- Original Message -----
>> > From: Stack <stack@duboce.net <javascript:;>>
>> > To: dev@hbase.apache.org <javascript:;>
>> > Cc: lars hofhansl <lhofhansl@yahoo.com <javascript:;>>
>> > Sent: Monday, October 1, 2012 3:19 PM
>> > Subject: Re: 0.96.0
>> >
>> > On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 3:10 PM, Jonathan Hsieh <jon@cloudera.com
>> <javascript:;>>
>> > wrote:
>> > > +1 for doing it now for 0.96.
>> > >
>> >
>> > We already have 3.4.4 as dependency.
>> >
>> > But sounds like we are saying that when you upgrade your hbase to
>> > 0.96, you need to also update your zk to 3.4.4 because hbase wants to
>> > use 3.4 zk features? Is that what we're saying?
>> >
>> > Good stuff,
>> > St.Ack
>> >
>> >
>>
>> --
>> Best regards,
>>
>> - Andy
>>
>> Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet Hein
>> (via Tom White)
>>
Re: 0.96.0
Posted by Elliott Clark <ec...@apache.org>.
That last little bit of Metrics migration to Metrics2 (hbase-4050) should
probably go in so that we're not straddling the different versions.
On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 3:38 PM, Andrew Purtell <ap...@apache.org> wrote:
> This depends on if the master changes that use ZK multi ops will go in as
> an option that can be toggled by config, or as a replacement?
>
> If you run secure clusters then 3.4.5 (with ZOOKEEPER-1550) is what you
> want to use regardless.
>
> On Tuesday, October 2, 2012, lars hofhansl wrote:
>
> > You mean as build time dependency, right? (Not sure now)
> >
> > I think we have said in the past it's not a runtime dependency.
> >
> > Yeah, what I was trying to say was to require ZK 3.4.4 to run HBase.
> > Maybe 0.96 is too early for that, because we probably do not want to file
> > more jiras against to remove now obsolete related code.
> >
> > -- Lars
> >
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Stack <stack@duboce.net <javascript:;>>
> > To: dev@hbase.apache.org <javascript:;>
> > Cc: lars hofhansl <lhofhansl@yahoo.com <javascript:;>>
> > Sent: Monday, October 1, 2012 3:19 PM
> > Subject: Re: 0.96.0
> >
> > On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 3:10 PM, Jonathan Hsieh <jon@cloudera.com
> <javascript:;>>
> > wrote:
> > > +1 for doing it now for 0.96.
> > >
> >
> > We already have 3.4.4 as dependency.
> >
> > But sounds like we are saying that when you upgrade your hbase to
> > 0.96, you need to also update your zk to 3.4.4 because hbase wants to
> > use 3.4 zk features? Is that what we're saying?
> >
> > Good stuff,
> > St.Ack
> >
> >
>
> --
> Best regards,
>
> - Andy
>
> Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet Hein
> (via Tom White)
>
Re: 0.96.0
Posted by Andrew Purtell <ap...@apache.org>.
This depends on if the master changes that use ZK multi ops will go in as
an option that can be toggled by config, or as a replacement?
If you run secure clusters then 3.4.5 (with ZOOKEEPER-1550) is what you
want to use regardless.
On Tuesday, October 2, 2012, lars hofhansl wrote:
> You mean as build time dependency, right? (Not sure now)
>
> I think we have said in the past it's not a runtime dependency.
>
> Yeah, what I was trying to say was to require ZK 3.4.4 to run HBase.
> Maybe 0.96 is too early for that, because we probably do not want to file
> more jiras against to remove now obsolete related code.
>
> -- Lars
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Stack <stack@duboce.net <javascript:;>>
> To: dev@hbase.apache.org <javascript:;>
> Cc: lars hofhansl <lhofhansl@yahoo.com <javascript:;>>
> Sent: Monday, October 1, 2012 3:19 PM
> Subject: Re: 0.96.0
>
> On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 3:10 PM, Jonathan Hsieh <jon@cloudera.com<javascript:;>>
> wrote:
> > +1 for doing it now for 0.96.
> >
>
> We already have 3.4.4 as dependency.
>
> But sounds like we are saying that when you upgrade your hbase to
> 0.96, you need to also update your zk to 3.4.4 because hbase wants to
> use 3.4 zk features? Is that what we're saying?
>
> Good stuff,
> St.Ack
>
>
--
Best regards,
- Andy
Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet Hein
(via Tom White)
Re: 0.96.0
Posted by lars hofhansl <lh...@yahoo.com>.
You mean as build time dependency, right? (Not sure now)
I think we have said in the past it's not a runtime dependency.
Yeah, what I was trying to say was to require ZK 3.4.4 to run HBase.
Maybe 0.96 is too early for that, because we probably do not want to file more jiras against to remove now obsolete related code.
-- Lars
----- Original Message -----
From: Stack <st...@duboce.net>
To: dev@hbase.apache.org
Cc: lars hofhansl <lh...@yahoo.com>
Sent: Monday, October 1, 2012 3:19 PM
Subject: Re: 0.96.0
On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 3:10 PM, Jonathan Hsieh <jo...@cloudera.com> wrote:
> +1 for doing it now for 0.96.
>
We already have 3.4.4 as dependency.
But sounds like we are saying that when you upgrade your hbase to
0.96, you need to also update your zk to 3.4.4 because hbase wants to
use 3.4 zk features? Is that what we're saying?
Good stuff,
St.Ack
Re: 0.96.0
Posted by Stack <st...@duboce.net>.
On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 3:10 PM, Jonathan Hsieh <jo...@cloudera.com> wrote:
> +1 for doing it now for 0.96.
>
We already have 3.4.4 as dependency.
But sounds like we are saying that when you upgrade your hbase to
0.96, you need to also update your zk to 3.4.4 because hbase wants to
use 3.4 zk features? Is that what we're saying?
Good stuff,
St.Ack
Re: 0.96.0
Posted by Jonathan Hsieh <jo...@cloudera.com>.
+1 for doing it now for 0.96.
On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 3:08 PM, lars hofhansl <lh...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Slightly unrelated. ZooKeeper 3.4.4 was declared stable. Should we require
> that for 0.96 (to get multi and simplify some code, etc), or delay that to
> 0.98 or later?
>
>
> -- Lars
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Matt Corgan <mc...@hotpads.com>
> To: dev@hbase.apache.org
> Cc:
> Sent: Monday, October 1, 2012 3:00 PM
> Subject: Re: 0.96.0
>
> I'll keep debugging PrefixTree stuff in my spare time to try to get it in
> as experimental. I think it's down to the last couple bugs but hard to
> know for sure. It's fairly non-invasive being just another
> DataBlockEncoding, so can't hurt people who don't turn it on.
>
>
> On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 2:26 PM, Jonathan Hsieh <jo...@cloudera.com> wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 2:25 PM, Jesse Yates <je...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > > + Snapshots?
> > > >
> > >
> > > I'd like to get it in - currently dependent on getting reviews :)
> > Currently
> > > working on the upper tiers to get them cranking on the refactored 3PC
> > code
> >
> >
> > I'm getting on this -- was out for a chunk of last week.
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > // Jonathan Hsieh (shay)
> > // Software Engineer, Cloudera
> > // jon@cloudera.com
> >
>
>
--
// Jonathan Hsieh (shay)
// Software Engineer, Cloudera
// jon@cloudera.com
Re: 0.96.0
Posted by Andrew Purtell <ap...@apache.org>.
Ted's right, 3.4.5 is what you want, not 3.4.4.
On Tuesday, October 2, 2012, wrote:
> Zookeeper 3.4.5 quickly follows 3.4.4 release.
>
> Looks like we should target 3.4.5 when it is released.
>
> FYI
>
>
>
> On Oct 1, 2012, at 3:08 PM, lars hofhansl <lhofhansl@yahoo.com<javascript:;>>
> wrote:
>
> > Slightly unrelated. ZooKeeper 3.4.4 was declared stable. Should we
> require that for 0.96 (to get multi and simplify some code, etc), or delay
> that to 0.98 or later?
> >
> >
> > -- Lars
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Matt Corgan <mcorgan@hotpads.com <javascript:;>>
> > To: dev@hbase.apache.org <javascript:;>
> > Cc:
> > Sent: Monday, October 1, 2012 3:00 PM
> > Subject: Re: 0.96.0
> >
> > I'll keep debugging PrefixTree stuff in my spare time to try to get it in
> > as experimental. I think it's down to the last couple bugs but hard to
> > know for sure. It's fairly non-invasive being just another
> > DataBlockEncoding, so can't hurt people who don't turn it on.
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 2:26 PM, Jonathan Hsieh <jon@cloudera.com<javascript:;>>
> wrote:
> >
> >> On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 2:25 PM, Jesse Yates <jesse.k.yates@gmail.com<javascript:;>
> >
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>>> + Snapshots?
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> I'd like to get it in - currently dependent on getting reviews :)
> >> Currently
> >>> working on the upper tiers to get them cranking on the refactored 3PC
> >> code
> >>
> >>
> >> I'm getting on this -- was out for a chunk of last week.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> // Jonathan Hsieh (shay)
> >> // Software Engineer, Cloudera
> >> // jon@cloudera.com <javascript:;>
> >>
> >
>
--
Best regards,
- Andy
Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet Hein
(via Tom White)
Re: 0.96.0
Posted by yu...@gmail.com.
Zookeeper 3.4.5 quickly follows 3.4.4 release.
Looks like we should target 3.4.5 when it is released.
FYI
On Oct 1, 2012, at 3:08 PM, lars hofhansl <lh...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Slightly unrelated. ZooKeeper 3.4.4 was declared stable. Should we require that for 0.96 (to get multi and simplify some code, etc), or delay that to 0.98 or later?
>
>
> -- Lars
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Matt Corgan <mc...@hotpads.com>
> To: dev@hbase.apache.org
> Cc:
> Sent: Monday, October 1, 2012 3:00 PM
> Subject: Re: 0.96.0
>
> I'll keep debugging PrefixTree stuff in my spare time to try to get it in
> as experimental. I think it's down to the last couple bugs but hard to
> know for sure. It's fairly non-invasive being just another
> DataBlockEncoding, so can't hurt people who don't turn it on.
>
>
> On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 2:26 PM, Jonathan Hsieh <jo...@cloudera.com> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 2:25 PM, Jesse Yates <je...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>> + Snapshots?
>>>>
>>>
>>> I'd like to get it in - currently dependent on getting reviews :)
>> Currently
>>> working on the upper tiers to get them cranking on the refactored 3PC
>> code
>>
>>
>> I'm getting on this -- was out for a chunk of last week.
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> // Jonathan Hsieh (shay)
>> // Software Engineer, Cloudera
>> // jon@cloudera.com
>>
>
Re: 0.96.0
Posted by Dave Wang <ds...@cloudera.com>.
+1 on getting ZK 3.4.4 and snapshots for 0.96. There's a couple of fixes
in the pipeline that rely on multi and if it's stable, then hopefully it's
less risk.
- Dave
On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 3:08 PM, lars hofhansl <lh...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Slightly unrelated. ZooKeeper 3.4.4 was declared stable. Should we require
> that for 0.96 (to get multi and simplify some code, etc), or delay that to
> 0.98 or later?
>
>
> -- Lars
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Matt Corgan <mc...@hotpads.com>
> To: dev@hbase.apache.org
> Cc:
> Sent: Monday, October 1, 2012 3:00 PM
> Subject: Re: 0.96.0
>
> I'll keep debugging PrefixTree stuff in my spare time to try to get it in
> as experimental. I think it's down to the last couple bugs but hard to
> know for sure. It's fairly non-invasive being just another
> DataBlockEncoding, so can't hurt people who don't turn it on.
>
>
> On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 2:26 PM, Jonathan Hsieh <jo...@cloudera.com> wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 2:25 PM, Jesse Yates <je...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > > + Snapshots?
> > > >
> > >
> > > I'd like to get it in - currently dependent on getting reviews :)
> > Currently
> > > working on the upper tiers to get them cranking on the refactored 3PC
> > code
> >
> >
> > I'm getting on this -- was out for a chunk of last week.
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > // Jonathan Hsieh (shay)
> > // Software Engineer, Cloudera
> > // jon@cloudera.com
> >
>
>
Re: 0.96.0
Posted by lars hofhansl <lh...@yahoo.com>.
Slightly unrelated. ZooKeeper 3.4.4 was declared stable. Should we require that for 0.96 (to get multi and simplify some code, etc), or delay that to 0.98 or later?
-- Lars
----- Original Message -----
From: Matt Corgan <mc...@hotpads.com>
To: dev@hbase.apache.org
Cc:
Sent: Monday, October 1, 2012 3:00 PM
Subject: Re: 0.96.0
I'll keep debugging PrefixTree stuff in my spare time to try to get it in
as experimental. I think it's down to the last couple bugs but hard to
know for sure. It's fairly non-invasive being just another
DataBlockEncoding, so can't hurt people who don't turn it on.
On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 2:26 PM, Jonathan Hsieh <jo...@cloudera.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 2:25 PM, Jesse Yates <je...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > > + Snapshots?
> > >
> >
> > I'd like to get it in - currently dependent on getting reviews :)
> Currently
> > working on the upper tiers to get them cranking on the refactored 3PC
> code
>
>
> I'm getting on this -- was out for a chunk of last week.
>
>
>
> --
> // Jonathan Hsieh (shay)
> // Software Engineer, Cloudera
> // jon@cloudera.com
>
Re: 0.96.0
Posted by Stack <st...@duboce.net>.
On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 3:00 PM, Matt Corgan <mc...@hotpads.com> wrote:
> I'll keep debugging PrefixTree stuff in my spare time to try to get it in
> as experimental. I think it's down to the last couple bugs but hard to
> know for sure. It's fairly non-invasive being just another
> DataBlockEncoding, so can't hurt people who don't turn it on.
>
This would be sweet Matt.
St.Ack
Re: 0.96.0
Posted by Matt Corgan <mc...@hotpads.com>.
I'll keep debugging PrefixTree stuff in my spare time to try to get it in
as experimental. I think it's down to the last couple bugs but hard to
know for sure. It's fairly non-invasive being just another
DataBlockEncoding, so can't hurt people who don't turn it on.
On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 2:26 PM, Jonathan Hsieh <jo...@cloudera.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 2:25 PM, Jesse Yates <je...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > > + Snapshots?
> > >
> >
> > I'd like to get it in - currently dependent on getting reviews :)
> Currently
> > working on the upper tiers to get them cranking on the refactored 3PC
> code
>
>
> I'm getting on this -- was out for a chunk of last week.
>
>
>
> --
> // Jonathan Hsieh (shay)
> // Software Engineer, Cloudera
> // jon@cloudera.com
>
Re: 0.96.0
Posted by Jonathan Hsieh <jo...@cloudera.com>.
On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 2:25 PM, Jesse Yates <je...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > + Snapshots?
> >
>
> I'd like to get it in - currently dependent on getting reviews :) Currently
> working on the upper tiers to get them cranking on the refactored 3PC code
I'm getting on this -- was out for a chunk of last week.
--
// Jonathan Hsieh (shay)
// Software Engineer, Cloudera
// jon@cloudera.com
Re: 0.96.0
Posted by Jesse Yates <je...@gmail.com>.
>
> + Protobufs anywhere we persist (to the filesystem, to zookeeper, over
> the wire, etc.)
> + Hadoop 1.0.0 is a requirement
> + You can run 0.96 on Hadoop 2.0.x
> + Runs on jdk7
> + All tests pass most of the time (instead of what we currently have
> where unit tests all pass on rare occasion)
>
>
At least for a minimum requirement, though I feel we could ship 0.96
without java7 support (and hence saving fixing all the failing tests).
> What else?
>
> + Snapshots?
>
I'd like to get it in - currently dependent on getting reviews :) Currently
working on the upper tiers to get them cranking on the refactored 3PC code
-------------------
Jesse Yates
@jesse_yates
jyates.github.com