I think a heads up that it is a needed change given we want to evolve and Hadoop has stopped releasing < 2.7.
On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 7:31 AM, Sean Busbey <[email protected]> wrote: > 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. > >> > >> > > > -- Best regards, Andrew Words like orphans lost among the crosstalk, meaning torn from truth's decrepit hands - A23, Crosstalk
