+1 (leaving 1.1 at Hadoop 2.5.x as is, and document how to use 2.6.x instead).
Note that I did not suggest going to 2.0 that in HBASE-13339, just that it
would be an option (after I said that forcing 2.6.0 in 1.1 would be a no-go,
IMHO).
-- Lars
From: Andrew Purtell <[email protected]>
To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, April 23, 2015 2:04 PM
Subject: Re: The Renumbering (proposed)
On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 2:00 PM, Stack <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 12:03 PM, Andrew Purtell <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> > That's fine but we still have unresolved problems:
> >
> > > Are the hadoop 2.5.x/2.6.x incompats just a few transitive includes
> > brought in by hadoop 2.6? Can we not release-note/doc our way a semvar
> pass
> > because our brothers upstream are less puritan than us? Heck, lets
> 'blame'
> > them!
> >
> > We don't have a consensus on what to do about Hadoop 2.5/2.6. I proposed
> we
> > doc this like you say here before but got push back. So here I am talking
> > about renumbering as another path forward.
> >
> > Whatever.. but let's decide this now and move on. Do HBASE-13339 in 1.1?
> > Three possibilities:
> > 1. No, stay with 2.5
> >
>
> I'd be +1 here (adding section to refguide on 2.6).
>
>
I'd be +1 here too, remove 1.1 as fix version from HBASE-13339 and update
the refguide instead
--
Best regards,
- Andy
Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet Hein
(via Tom White)
