the RM for Hadoop 3.0.0 has been periodically updating when he aims to have release votes done:
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/HADOOP/Hadoop+3.0.0+release Obviously not guaranteed, since it is an active ASF project. ;) We can have Accumulo releases, just not GA releases. So we could mimic Hadoop's versioning and vote out 2.0.0-alpha-X, 2.0.0-beta-X, etc. We would expressly call out that our normal compatibility promises wouldn't apply to these. Or that only a reduced form applies if we have some assurances from Hadoop. As for migration, maybe after we know what Accumulo 2.0 on Hadoop 3.0 looks like (I guess beta timeframe?) we can then work out if we should add Hadoop2 and Hadoop 3 support in a future 1.y release and require double-rolling-upgrade for no downtime upgrade. On Thu, Aug 3, 2017 at 10:28 AM, Keith Turner <ke...@deenlo.com> wrote: > I am in favor of going to Hadoop 3 for Accumulo 2. If we do this then > Accumulo 2 can not release until after Hadoop 3 does. Any idea when > Hadoop 3 will release? > > On Thu, Aug 3, 2017 at 10:08 AM, Sean Busbey <bus...@cloudera.com> wrote: > > Hi Folks! > > > > I think we need to start being more formal in planning for Hadoop 3. > > They're up to 3.0.0-alpha4 and are pushing towards API-locking betas[1]. > > > > What do folks think about starting to push on an Accumulo 2.0 release > that > > only supports Hadoop 3? It would let us move faster, which we'll need to > do > > if we want to get any API changes in to the Hadoop 3 line. > > > > If we get started soon we can probably make it parity on beta/GA status > > with the Hadoop 3 line. That would give us a beta for Accumulo Summit and > > GA by end of the year. > > > > Going to just Hadoop 3+ would also be a sufficient dependency break that > we > > could do a pass updating any lagging dependencies to latest major > version. > > > > > > [1]: https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/HADOOP/ > Hadoop+3.0.0+release > > -- > > busbey > -- busbey
