How do we want to phrase the note to user@hbase? as a heads-up that this is a needed change due to the practicalities of having Hadoop as a dependency? or as something we're looking for feedback on from the user community before we declare consensus reached?
On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 8:44 AM, Josh Elser <[email protected]> wrote: > +1 no objections here. > > > On 4/24/18 11:37 PM, Andrew Purtell 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. >> >> >
