I expanded the condition in the filter like this: project = HBASE AND fixVersion in (2.0.0, 2.0.0-alpha-1, 2.0.0-alpha-2, 3.0) AND labels in (incompatibleChange, incompatible, incompatibility)
Still there're only two showing up. On Thu, Aug 3, 2017 at 9:07 AM, Zach York <zyork.contribut...@gmail.com> wrote: > I tried to filter based on imcompatible labels and there were only two > JIRAs returned [1]. I have a hard time believing that there were only two > breaking changes from 1.x to 2.x. > > [1] > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-17957?jql= > project%20%3D%20HBASE%20AND%20fixVersion%20%3D%202.0.0% > 20AND%20labels%20in%20(incompatibleChange%2C%20incompatible%2C% > 20incompatibility) > > On Thu, Aug 3, 2017 at 8:54 AM, Zach York <zyork.contribut...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > This kinda helps, but these seem more like expectations. I was going more > > for things like HFile format changed, meta table structure changed, > > coprocessor implementations changed (these are just examples, I don't > know > > if any of these actually changed). > > > > More technical differences between branch-1 and branch-2 which then can > > help us get the right expectations for compatibility. > > > > On Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 6:34 PM, Stack <st...@duboce.net> wrote: > > > >> On Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 5:25 PM, Zach York <zyork.contribut...@gmail.com > > > >> wrote: > >> > >> > Do we know what the major pain points for migration are? Can we > discuss > >> > that/get a list going? > >> > > >> > > >> Here's a few in outline: > >> > >> + There is issue of formats, of hbase-2.x being able to read hbase-1.x > >> data > >> whether from HDFS or ZooKeeper or off the wire. > >> + An hbase-1.x client should be able to Get/Put and Scan an hbase-2.x > >> cluster; no holes in the API or unintelligible serializations. > >> + There is then the little dance that has us rolling restart from an > >> hbase-1.x cluster to hbase-2.x; i.e. upgrade master first and then it > will > >> assign regions to the new hbase-2.x regionservers as they come on line. > >> TBD. > >> > >> Is this what you mean sir? > >> > >> S > >> > >> > >> > I think without that knowledge it is hard (for me at least :) ) to > >> > determine where we should set our sights in terms of migration. > >> > > >> > Thanks, > >> > Zach > >> > > >> > On Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 4:38 PM, Stack <st...@duboce.net> wrote: > >> > > >> > > What are our expectations regards compatibility between hbase1 and > >> > hbase2? > >> > > > >> > > Lets have a chat about it. Here are some goal posts. > >> > > > >> > > + You have to upgrade to hbase-1.x before you can migrate to > hbase-2. > >> No > >> > > migration from < hbase-1 (Is this too onerous? Should we support > 0.98 > >> => > >> > > 2.0?). > >> > > + You do NOT have to upgrade to the latest release of hbase1 to > >> migrate > >> > to > >> > > hbase2; being up on hbase-1.0.0+ will be sufficient. > >> > > + You'll have to update your hbase1 coprocessors to deploy them on > >> > hbase2. > >> > > A bunch of CP API has/will change by the time hbase2 comes out; e.g. > >> > > watching for region split on RegionServer no longer makes sense > given > >> > > Master runs all splits now. > >> > > + An hbase1 client can run against an hbase2 cluster but it will > only > >> be > >> > > able to do DML (Get/Put/Scan, etc.). We do not allow being able to > do > >> > admin > >> > > ops using an hbase1 Admin client against an hbase2 cluster. We have > >> some > >> > > egregious API violations in branch-1; e.g. we have protobuf in our > API > >> > (See > >> > > HBASE-15607). The notion is that we can't afford a deprecation cycle > >> > > purging this stuff from our Admin API. > >> > > > >> > > What you all think? > >> > > > >> > > St.Ack > >> > > > >> > > >> > > > > >
