Now that hadoop-1 support is dropped from trunk, should HBase-TRUNK-on-Hadoop-1.1 build be disabled ?
Cheers On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 5:16 PM, Enis Söztutar <enis....@gmail.com> wrote: > Ok, the consensus seems to be to drop the support. I am all in favor of > less overhead, but was initially concerned about leaving some of the users > behind. If we are ok with that, lets pull the trigger. > > Opened an issue for doc and tasks : > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-10690. Marked as critical for > 0.99. > > Enis > > > On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 5:06 PM, Ted Yu <yuzhih...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > bq. Maybe a new hadoop-compat module for 2.3.0 +? > > > > +1 > > > > > > On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 5:02 PM, Andrew Purtell <apurt...@apache.org> > > wrote: > > > > > On Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 3:39 AM, Stack <st...@duboce.net> wrote: > > > > > > > But if we instead allow that our versioning currently is of-kilter -- > > > Lars > > > > Hofhansl has argued off-line that 0.96.0 should have been 1.0 > > > > > > > > > > Related, is Hadoop 2.3.0 more like 3.0 ? > > > > > > If, for example, we wanted to pin the HFiles of IN_MEMORY tables in > > HDFS's > > > centralized cache, as HDFS-4949 suggests, then how different will our > > view > > > of the HDFS interfaces be between 2.0.0 and 2.3.0+? Would the (I'm > > > guessing) necessary reflection be a perf issue? Maybe a new > hadoop-compat > > > module for 2.3.0 +? Or drop support for Hadoop < 2.3.0 ? > > > > > > Point is - after we finish this discussion about Hadoop 1 or not (seems > > > not), then what to do about the different flavors of Hadoop 2. > > > > > > -- > > > Best regards, > > > > > > - Andy > > > > > > Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet > Hein > > > (via Tom White) > > > > > >
