I don't think that's a good idea unless you can come up with very clear version number change.
-Joey On Fri, Aug 2, 2013 at 2:31 PM, Christopher <[email protected]> wrote: > Would it be reasonable to consider a version of 1.4 that breaks > compatibility with 0.20? I'm not really a fan of this, personally, but > am curious what others think. > > -- > Christopher L Tubbs II > http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii > > > On Fri, Aug 2, 2013 at 2:22 PM, Joey Echeverria <[email protected]> wrote: >> Sorry for the delay, it's been one of those weeks. >> >> The current version would probably not be backwards compatible to >> 0.20.2 just based on changes in dependencies. We're looking right now >> to see how hard it is to have three way compatibility (0.20, 1.0, >> 2.0). >> >> -Joey >> >> On Thu, Aug 1, 2013 at 7:33 PM, Dave Marion <[email protected]> wrote: >>> Any update? >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Joey Echeverria [mailto:[email protected]] >>> Sent: Monday, July 29, 2013 1:24 PM >>> To: [email protected] >>> Subject: Re: Hadoop 2.0 Support for Accumulo 1.4 Branch >>> >>> We're testing this today. I'll report back what we find. >>> >>> >>> -Joey >>> — >>> Sent from Mailbox for iPhone >>> >>> On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 3:34 PM, null <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> "Will 1.4 still work with 0.20 with these patches?" >>>> Great point Billie. >>>> ----- Original Message ----- >>>> From: "Billie Rinaldi" <[email protected]> >>>> To: [email protected] >>>> Sent: Friday, July 26, 2013 3:02:41 PM >>>> Subject: Re: Hadoop 2.0 Support for Accumulo 1.4 Branch On Fri, Jul >>>> 26, 2013 at 11:33 AM, Joey Echeverria <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> > If these patches are going to be included with 1.4.4 or 1.4.5, I >>>>> > would >>>>> like >>>>> > to see the following test run using CDH4 on at least a 5 node cluster. >>>>> > More nodes would be better. >>>>> > >>>>> > * unit test >>>>> > * Functional test >>>>> > * 24 hr Continuous ingest + verification >>>>> > * 24 hr Continuous ingest + verification + agitation >>>>> > * 24 hr Random walk >>>>> > * 24 hr Random walk + agitation >>>>> > >>>>> > I may be able to assist with this, but I can not make any promises. >>>>> >>>>> Sure thing. Is there already a write-up on running this full battery >>>>> of tests? I have a 10 node cluster that I can use for this. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> > Great. I think this would be a good patch for 1.4. I assume that >>>>> > if a user stays with Hadoop 1 there are no dependency changes? >>>>> >>>>> Yup. It works the same way as 1.5 where all of the dependency changes >>>>> are in a Hadoop 2.0 profile. >>>>> >>>> In 1.5.0, we gave up on compatibility with 0.20 (and early versions of >>>> 1.0) to make the compatibility requirements simpler; we ended up >>>> without dependency changes in the hadoop version profiles. Will 1.4 >>>> still work with 0.20 with these patches? If there are dependency >>>> changes in the profiles, 1.4 would have to be compiled against a >>>> hadoop version compatible with the running version of hadoop, correct? >>>> We had some trouble in the >>>> 1.5 release process with figuring out how to provide multiple binary >>>> artifacts (each compiled against a different version of hadoop) for >>>> the same release. Just something we should consider before we are in >>>> the midst of releasing 1.4.4. >>>> Billie >>>>> -Joey >>>>> >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Joey Echeverria >> Director, Federal FTS >> Cloudera, Inc. -- Joey Echeverria Director, Federal FTS Cloudera, Inc.
