Mike, So works just like upgrading from 1.5?
(After 1.4 shutdown, install 1.6 and restart?) That sounds entirely reasonable. Drew On Jun 17, 2014 10:52 PM, "Mike Drob" <[email protected]> wrote: > We initially tried to set it up as a stand-alone utility but eventually > gave up. In order to properly do the upgrade, you concurrently need to run > whatever upgrade code concurrently with a tablet server hosting !METADATA > and a tablet server that can replay WALs. We ended up duplicating a lot of > logic already present in master before scrapping that plan. An alternative > would have been to try to build on MAC, but that was also non-trivial to > deploy, so we spliced the code into the existing upgrade path. How do you > feel about that, Drew? > > > On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 8:57 PM, Drew Farris <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > I'm +1 for a utility that would allow us to go directly from 1.4 to 1.6. > > > > In terms of a general policy, I suggest we make this sort of decision on > a > > case by case basis. My unreasonably self-centered intuition suggests that > > there may be some folks that want to go from 1.4 to 1.6 now due to a > > relatively short 1.5 cycle. The need to jump multiple versions like might > > not exist in the future. > > > > > > > > On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 5:24 PM, Sean Busbey <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > In an effort to get more users off of our now unsupported 1.4 release, > > > should we support upgrading directly to 1.6 without going through a 1.5 > > > upgrade? > > > > > > More directly for those on user@: would you be more likely to upgrade > > off > > > of 1.4 if you could do so directly to 1.6? > > > > > > We have this working locally at Cloudera as a part of our CDH > integration > > > (we shipped 1.4 and we're planning to ship 1.6 next). > > > > > > We can get into implementation details on a jira if there's positive > > > consensus, but the changes weren't very complicated. They're mostly > > > > > > * forward porting and consolidating some upgrade code > > > * additions to the README for instructions > > > > > > Personally, I can see the both sides of the argument. On the plus side, > > > anything to get more users off of 1.4 is a good thing. On the negative > > > side, it means we have the 1.4 related upgrade code sitting in a > > supported > > > code branch longer. > > > > > > Thoughts? > > > > > > -- > > > Sean > > > > > >
