+1 -- well put, Andrew.

On 10/28/17 1:17 PM, Andrew Purtell wrote:
I would not like to see downgrades as a goal. This would be new. We've not done 
it before. Laudible goal, but we are clearly stretched already.


On Oct 28, 2017, at 10:08 AM, Mike Drob <md...@apache.org> wrote:

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

Reply via email to