>> Will we release the hadoop1 jars as well? > I think that it's still worth doing; what about you?
Agree, it would be nice to have it. 2013/10/31 Josh Wills <[email protected]> > On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 11:17 PM, Chao Shi <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Due to the client API changes and upgrade downtime, I can expect that > there > > are still a lot of users staying with 0.94. For our use case, we will > > continue to use 0.94 for at least several months. So I may still work on > > "0.8.1, 0.8.2..." if there are new features requests or urgent bugs to > fix. > > > > That would be fantastic. > > > > > > >> 4) Do the 0.9.0 release against with Hadoop 2 and HBase 0.96 as the > > default. > > Will we release the hadoop1 jars as well? > > > > I think that it's still worth doing; what about you? > > > > > > > 2013/10/31 Josh Wills <[email protected]> > > > > > On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 2:23 PM, Gabriel Reid <[email protected] > > > >wrote: > > > > > > > Inlined below. > > > > > > > > On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 6:02 PM, Josh Wills <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > That said, the > > > > > code changes that we'll need to make to get Crunch working against > > the > > > > 0.96 > > > > > APIs are different enough from the 0.94 APIs that I feel like > > > maintaining > > > > > some sort of compatibility layer in our code will be pretty ugly. > > > > > > > > Yep, that's definitely something we don't want to do unless we've got > > > > a good reason > > > > to do it. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm thinking along these lines: > > > > > > > > > > 1) Release 0.8.0 in the next couple of days against our current set > > of > > > > > dependencies (Hadoop and HBase.) > > > > > 2) Upgrade the Hadoop 2 dependency to Hadoop 2.2.0, which will also > > > > require > > > > > us to upgrade to protocol buffers 2.5.0 in the build-- I've already > > > done > > > > > this and verified that everything works. > > > > > 3) Switch the HBase code to the 0.96 APIs, without trying to > maintain > > > > > backwards compatibility with 0.94, and get everything working. > > > > > 4) Do the 0.9.0 release against with Hadoop 2 and HBase 0.96 as the > > > > default. > > > > > > > > > > I imagine that there will still be bugfixes against 0.8.0 (both > core > > > and > > > > > HBase) that will mean that we'll need to do 0.8.1, 0.8.2, etc. > > releases > > > > to > > > > > support, and I'm happy to keep those up at a regular cadence. > > > > > > > > This works for me, but I wish we had a better idea of what the > adoption > > > of > > > > HBase 0.96 will be. I'm guessing it'll be pretty high, as people who > > are > > > > just > > > > using the normal client APIs have a less troublesome migration path > > than > > > > those working with MapReduce. On the other hand, it would be a bummer > > to > > > > shut out all the 0.94.x users if there isn't major adoption of 0.96 > > right > > > > away. > > > > > > > > Anyhow, like I said, I'm personally fine with just supporting 0.96 > as I > > > > don't > > > > think it'll be a problem for me. > > > > > > > > > > Yeah, it's a hard balance to strike. I fully expect that we will have > > > 0.8.1, 0.8.2, etc. releases to bring some of the fixes we do in trunk > to > > > the HBase 0.94-based Crunch, which will still be the major version for > > > awhile. The HBase folks consider 0.96 the future and the best version > to > > > use w/Hadoop 2.2.0, so I'd like to pay whatever cost we have to pay in > > > terms of APIs and dependency changes all at once instead of piecemeal. > > > > > > > > > > - Gabriel > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > Director of Data Science > > > Cloudera <http://www.cloudera.com> > > > Twitter: @josh_wills <http://twitter.com/josh_wills> > > > > > > > > > -- > Director of Data Science > Cloudera <http://www.cloudera.com> > Twitter: @josh_wills <http://twitter.com/josh_wills> >
