> I fear it will be close to impossible to have an upgrade path from any > version of HBase to every future version. > [...] > If we only support upgrade from one version to the next we can make sure that >it is rock solid and think through all the corner cases.
+1 Best regards, - Andy Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet Hein (via Tom White) ----- Original Message ----- > From: lars hofhansl <lhofha...@yahoo.com> > To: "dev@hbase.apache.org" <dev@hbase.apache.org> > Cc: > Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2012 4:53 PM > Subject: Re: hbase 0.94.0 > > I fear it will be close to impossible to have an upgrade path from any > version > of HBase to every future version. > At some point we have to make the cut, or the code will littered with old > cruft > and upgrade logic, not even to speak of the testing overhead > to verify that all old versions can be upgraded to the latest one. > > > If we only support upgrade from one version to the next we can make sure that > it > is rock solid and think through all the corner cases. > > And then we can stop maintaining old code and focus on fixing bugs and adding > features. > > > I like Matt's idea being able to check that all HFiles did in fact upgrade > to V2 (that falls into the "rock solid" part). > And maybe that means it is too late to remove HFileV1 in 0.94. > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Jonathan Hsieh <j...@cloudera.com> > To: dev@hbase.apache.org > Cc: > Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2012 4:22 PM > Subject: Re: hbase 0.94.0 > > +1 to having some sort of migration mechanism especially for the files > side. I say this out of personal interest -- I'm fairly certain that at > some point I'm going to have to support these upgrades. > > Jon. > > On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 12:25 PM, Jesse Yates > <jesse.k.ya...@gmail.com>wrote: > >> +1 on removing it too, but maybe we should have some sort of upgrade >> script to help make the switch? >> >> I'm thinking something pluggable on both sides of the upgrade, so > people >> can go from version X->Y, rather than having to upgrade first to an >> intermediate and then to he version they want (right it would be going from >> 0.20->.92->.96, IMO an excessive PITA). >> >> Just my two cents... >> >> - Jesse Yates >> >> Sent from my iPhone. >> >> On Jan 26, 2012, at 12:16 PM, lars hofhansl <lhofha...@yahoo.com> > wrote: >> >> > Good point. >> > 0.94 is not branched, yet. And I think generally we do not support >> skipping releases for upgrades. >> > +1 on removing HFileV1 cruft for 0.94 >> > >> > >> > -- Lars >> > >> > >> > >> > ________________________________ >> > From: Matt Corgan <mcor...@hotpads.com> >> > To: dev@hbase.apache.org; Andrew Purtell <apurt...@apache.org> >> > Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2012 11:51 AM >> > Subject: Re: hbase 0.94.0 >> > >> > Are there any thoughts about when it is ok to stop being backwards >> > compatible? Mainly thinking of HFileV1... 0.92 will convert all >> HFileV1's >> > to HFileV2's, so it would probably have been ok to delete the code > for >> > HFileV1 in 0.94 and force people to upgrade through 0.92. That > didn't >> > actually happen, so it's looking like folks will be able to go > straight >> > from 0.90 to 0.94. But, perhaps it should be deleted for 0.96? >> > >> > >> > On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 11:41 AM, Andrew Purtell > <apurt...@apache.org >> >wrote: >> > >> >> Yeah, so >> >> >> >> - Security (basically another coprocessor for inclusion in > mainline, >> >> like Constraints) >> >> >> >> if not in 0.92.1. >> >> >> >> Best regards, >> >> >> >> - Andy >> >> >> >> Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - > Piet Hein >> >> (via Tom White) >> >> >> >> >> >>> ________________________________ >> >>> From: Andrew Purtell <apurt...@apache.org> >> >>> To: "dev@hbase.apache.org" > <dev@hbase.apache.org> >> >>> Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2012 11:28 AM >> >>> Subject: Re: hbase 0.94.0 >> >>> >> >>> A limited set of changes so we can get it out on that kind of >> timeframe. >> >> :-) >> >>> >> >>> - Constraints (is ready to go, is a coprocessor, so is in > the large >> >> just a new package to drop in) >> >>> >> >>> - Useful utilities for ops: >> >>> >> >>> - LoadTestTool (if Ted didn't end up backporting this > into 0.92) >> >>> >> >>> - The store file locality thing I have mostly done, will > finish it >> >>> >> >>> - Mikhail and crew's ongoing optimizations (HBASE-4218, > etc.), the >> ones >> >> he considers fully baked >> >>> >> >>> I saw wire compatibility mentioned, for 0.96 but perhaps >> >> optional/transitional code in 0.94 as well. This is something we > would >> try >> >> out and beat up upon in staging in earnest. >> >>> >> >>> Best regards, >> >>> >> >>> - Andy >> >>> >> >>> Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - > Piet >> Hein >> >> (via Tom White) >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>>> ________________________________ >> >>>> From: Stack <st...@duboce.net> >> >>>> To: HBase Dev List <dev@hbase.apache.org> >> >>>> Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2012 8:34 PM >> >>>> Subject: hbase 0.94.0 >> >>>> >> >>>> Lets branch end of february? No new features thereafter. > Is this too >> >>>> close in? Would be grand if 0.94.0 shipped before > hbasecon. What >> >>>> should 0.94.0 have in it? I don't mind if the list is > short. >> >>>> >> >>>> Unless someone else wants too, I don't mind being > release manager >> >>>> (will try to run a tighter ship this time around). >> >>>> >> >>>> St.Ack >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>> >> >>> >> > > > > -- > // Jonathan Hsieh (shay) > // Software Engineer, Cloudera > // j...@cloudera.com >
