+1 Le 31 oct. 2014 23:49, "Andrew Purtell" <[email protected]> a écrit :
> Based on the positive responses thus far, and unless we see an objection > between now and then, I plan to resolve HBASE-12397 next week by removing > support in 0.98 branch for Hadoop 1.0 (but not Hadoop 1.1) in time for > release 0.98.8. > > On Fri, Oct 31, 2014 at 3:34 PM, Ted Yu <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Adding user@. > > > > I would +1 this motion. > > > > On Fri, Oct 31, 2014 at 12:18 PM, Sean Busbey <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > +1, presuming we wouldn't change our position on hadoop 1.0 for 0.94. > > > > > > For the curious, here is the full support matrix Andrew is referencing: > > > http://hbase.apache.org/book.html#d0e1440 > > > > > > On Fri, Oct 31, 2014 at 1:13 PM, Andrew Purtell <[email protected]> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > No, we'll still need a -hadoop1 and -hadoop2 munged build of 0.98. > I'm > > > only > > > > suggesting removing support for version 1.0. Other version 1.x would > > > remain > > > > active in the compatibility list. > > > > > > > > On Fri, Oct 31, 2014 at 11:01 AM, Konstantin Boudnik <[email protected] > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Absolutely makes sense! it will make a lot of things easier, > really. > > > The > > > > > infamous need for classifiers will finally go away! > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Oct 31, 2014 at 10:56AM, Andrew Purtell wrote: > > > > > > Hadoop 1.0 is an ancient, and I believe dead, version that > > certainly > > > > > nobody > > > > > > should use today. We have a chronic problem on the 0.98 branch > with > > > > > changes > > > > > > tested on only Hadoop 2 later are found to break builds against > > > Hadoop > > > > 1, > > > > > > since only 0.94 and 0.98 still support Hadoop 1.x. See > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-12397 as an example. > > > This > > > > > issue > > > > > > also illustrates that dropping support for 1.0 while retaining > > > support > > > > > for > > > > > > 1.1 and later versions of Hadoop 1.x can reduce cross-version > > > > > compatibility > > > > > > complexity for at least the API involved in that issue, and > > certainly > > > > > > others. This in my opinion is a good thing. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > Best regards, > > > > > > > > > > > > - Andy > > > > > > > > > > > > Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - > Piet > > > > Hein > > > > > > (via Tom White) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > Best regards, > > > > > > > > - Andy > > > > > > > > Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet > > Hein > > > > (via Tom White) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > Sean > > > > > > > > > -- > Best regards, > > - Andy > > Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet Hein > (via Tom White) >
