I think yes On Wed, Apr 25, 2018 at 7:13 AM, Sean Busbey <[email protected]> wrote:
> How would we rephrase our compatibility guidelines? Special call-out > section about Hadoop? > > On Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 10:37 PM, Andrew Purtell <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Let's consider branching for HBase 1.5. > > > > The new feature justifying a minor increment is storage class aware > > placement (HBASE-19858), and a required update in Hadoop minimum version. > > It would be marked experimental. However, some of our Chinese colleagues > > have been running equivalent changes in production for a couple of years > > and all tests I've done with it look positive. > > > > Hadoop hasn't released 2.6 or below in ages. In all recent discussions I > > have found on their public lists, there are no plans to do so. They are > > still releasing 2.7. Therefore, I think it fair to conclude the earliest > > supported version of Hadoop by the Hadoop community is 2.7, and we can > > adopt this position too. When putting together a 1.5.0 release I would > > update documentation to reflect that the minimum supported Hadoop version > > is now 2.7.0, and put a note to this effect in the release notes. > > > > Are there any concerns? > > > > Related, a nice to have for the new HBase 1.5 code line would be > > successful compilation against Hadoop 2.9, 3.0 and 3.1. > > > > > > -- > > Best regards, > > Andrew > > > > Words like orphans lost among the crosstalk, meaning torn from truth's > > decrepit hands > > - A23, Crosstalk > -- Best regards, Andrew Words like orphans lost among the crosstalk, meaning torn from truth's decrepit hands - A23, Crosstalk
