If downgrades are a later goal, does that mean somebody could go from some 1.x to 2.0 to 2.y then back to 1.x?
On Fri, Oct 27, 2017 at 10:42 PM, Sean Busbey <bus...@apache.org> wrote: > I'd like to make downgrades a non-goal. I'd love us to support > downgrades eventually, but that's a feature in its own right and I > don't think we have time to get it done and still have a 2.0.0 GA in a > reasonable time frame. > > On Fri, Oct 27, 2017 at 10:40 PM, Sean Busbey <bus...@apache.org> wrote: > > A recent JIRA about our hfile format[1] has got me thinking about > > expectations for upgrading. The specifics of that JIRA aren't terribly > > important; it's the general issue I want to talk about. A > > simplification of the mismatch in expectations between two groups is > > that some folks place the bar for "we support rolling upgrade" at > > rolling upgrade from 1.y.z* versions generally and others are > > comfortable requiring an initial upgrade to some later 1.y.z version > > first. > > > > Have we documented what our goals are for upgrades this major release? > > Do we know what we have to do to get there? I've seen a few one-off > > JIRAs to fix particular problems, but not really a plan. > > > > We should discuss here a bit. > > > > When things have some consensus is anyone willing to take point on > > writing up the results in a scope document of sorts? I have a few good > > examples to point you to, though they're all for features. > > > > > > [1]: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-19052 >
