Which version of 0.20 are you testing against? Vanilla, or cdh3 flavored?
On Fri, Aug 2, 2013 at 2:37 PM, Joey Echeverria <[email protected]> wrote: > 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. >
