I'll check how upgrade fares from 1.4 to 2.0 while exercising the 1.4.0 candidates for release. Can someone do that for 1.2?
> On Oct 29, 2017, at 9:11 AM, Mike Drob <md...@apache.org> wrote: > > I think the crux of the issue is that nobody's done the work to find out. > > On Sat, Oct 28, 2017 at 8:24 PM, Andrew Purtell <andrew.purt...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> Is there anything in 1.4* not in 1.2 that would warrant that? Otherwise I >> agree, not requiring an intermediate upgrade step would be best. Requiring >> a double upgrade would be super operator unfriendly. >> >> * - Should everything go reasonably well we will have a 1.4.0 release >> before December. I'm going to do the first RC next week. >> >> >>> On Oct 28, 2017, at 5:09 PM, Mike Drob <mad...@cloudera.com> wrote: >>> >>> Ok, looks like there is some enough feelings that we don't need to worry >>> about downgrades. >>> >>> What about the other part of Sean's question? Do we need to support >> rolling >>> upgrades to 2.0 from any 1.x, or is it fair game to require a specific >>> minimum version? >>> >>> If we felt that it simplified things, I'd even be happy with a minimum >>> 1.4->2.0 upgrade path, but 1.4 doesn't exist yet and I don't feel like >>> that's something we can dictate to users. Maybe it's ok to set the >> minimum >>> line at 1.2? If we end up moving the stable pointer, that makes for a >>> stronger argument for a newer minimum version. >>> >>> Mike >>> >>>> On Sat, Oct 28, 2017 at 4:46 PM, Josh Elser <josh.el...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >>>> >>>> +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 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>
