I'm in favour of 2.7.1+ as well. A special call-out about Hadoop also seems fine. Thanks Andrew!
On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 8:42 AM Andrew Purtell <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 >
