Can we ask Hadoop to make a 2.5.3 release with HDFS-7005? > What incompatibility is in 2.6.0
This is a fair point. What's worse than HBASE-13149? which we hit with 2.5. On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 3:23 PM, Elliott Clark <[email protected]> wrote: > I just don't understand sticking with 2.5.1. Hadoop 2.5.1 is something > that's basically un-usable in an environment with real load. I can't get it > to pass 1/2 a day of IT tests ( which should mean that it fails all RC > votes). > > The choice that we are giving the user: > > * Upgrade to get bug fixes critical bug fixes and risk some as of yet > un-said incompatibility > * Stay with 2.5.1 and know that regionserver can be wedged and completely > stuck at any given time. With turning it off and back on being the only > remediation. > > So to me it seems that sticking with 2.5.1 in the package while telling > users to upgrade is just ignoring the issue so that we can claim semver. > We're asking the user to do the upgrade themselves ( note that they are > still exposed to any incompatibilities to hadoop 2.6 or 2.7) so that we can > claim a pyrrhic victory. > > What incompatibility is in 2.6.0 or 2.7.0 that's worse than the bugs and > un-usable hbase features of 2.5.1? > > > On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 2:17 PM, lars hofhansl <[email protected]> wrote: > > > +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) > > > > > > > -- Best regards, - Andy Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet Hein (via Tom White)
