To be clear, I'm good with a symbolic representation, but I think we should
be making positive statements about configs we stand behind rather than
those we don't. More of a bounded set.
On Tue, Aug 21, 2018, 11:01 AM Misty Linville <mi...@apache.org> wrote:
> Let's change that table to positive statements. Production, supported,
> recommended, tested. WDYT?
>
> On Tue, Aug 21, 2018, 8:12 AM Josh Elser <els...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> Mich T had cross-posted a question to users@{hbase,phoenix} the only
>> day. After some more information, we were able to find out that Mich was
>> trying to use Hadoop 3.1 with HBase 1.2.6
>>
>> After pointing Mich to the compatibility table[1], I was about to puff
>> out my chest and say "look! this table could've told you that HBase
>> 1.2.6 wouldn't work with Hadoop 3.x!"
>>
>> But, then I realized that we don't have a single entry for HBase that
>> implies it would even work for Hadoop 3. We presently have the following:
>>
>> "S" = supported
>> "X" = not supported
>> "NT" = Not tested
>>
>> I propose that would should add another "value" for cells in the table
>> to better represent "Works, but not battle-tested" or similar. That
>> would make possible values:
>>
>> "S" = supported
>> "NP" = not production ready
>> "X" = not supported
>> "NT" = not tested
>>
>> Furthermore, the word "supported" drives me up a wall (as I think it
>> implies the wrong mindset for an open source community), and I would
>> rather see "functional". e.g.
>>
>> "F" = Fully functional, production ready
>> "NP" = Functional, but not production ready/has known issues
>> "X" = Not functional, lacking basic ability
>> "NT" = Not tested, functionality is unknown
>>
>> Thoughts? Things that I've missed?
>>
>> - Josh
>>
>> [1] http://hbase.apache.org/book.html#hadoop
>>
>
