On Fri, Mar 13, 2020 at 9:14 AM Sean Busbey <[email protected]> wrote:
> -user@ on purpose > > We have previously communicated that hbase drops support for EOM Hadoop > releases in the next hbase minor release. So I don't think we need specific > communication about Hadoop 2.8. > > I am +1 on updating branch-2 to 2.9 or 2.10. I don't have strong feelings > on if that includes the change landing in hbase 2.3.0, but I think this is > the kind of ongoing maintenance work that should happen sooner rather than > later, so maybe time for branch-2.3 if we don't want the update there. > > I'd be in favor of going to hadoop 2.10 in hbase 2.3.0. S > > On Fri, Mar 13, 2020, 11:03 Nick Dimiduk <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > For me, I prefer we just bump the hadoop version of 2.3.0 directly to > > 2.10.0, as 2.9.x is almost dead too. > > > > For 2.3, I raised this question earlier on "[DISCUSS] Hadoop dependency > > versions for 2.3" [0]. Our conclusion was "if it ain't broke, don't fix > > it." > > > > Since we've had no previous communication of dropping support for 2.8, I > > was planning to release 2.3.x as the last HBase release line with support > > for Hadoop 2.8.x. I haven't investigated the changelog closely, nor am I > > fully versed in the implications this might have in our interactions with > > the HDFS APIs, so I don't have a technical argument for or against moving > > forward this minor version dependency. > > > > Lacking further information, I am -0 on changing this dependency. If we > do > > decide to bump the minimum Hadoop minor version for 2.3.x, I agree that > we > > should target 2.10. > > > > Thank for bringing to light the new information, raising the question > Duo, > > and for your perspective, Wei-Chiu. > > > > [0]: > > > > > https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/r2e4d47ebc49cb25a09e49dde1a652d5e952266547238b8e2d90685db%40%3Cdev.hbase.apache.org%3E > > > > > > > > On Wed, Mar 11, 2020 at 5:57 PM Wei-Chiu Chuang <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > +1 I'd like to encourage the community to update and reduce the Hadoop > > 2.x > > > presence as much as possible. > > > > > > There is not an official DISCUSS/VOTE thread to EOL Hadoop 2.9 yet, > even > > > though so far the feedback has been quite receptive to the idea. > > > > > > Hadoop 2.10 is meant to be a "bridge release" for those who are not > ready > > > to upgrade to Hadoop 3.x. > > > Given that the main contributors (LinkedIn, Microsoft and Verizon > Media) > > > are on 2.10, bypassing 2.9 altogether, the Hadoop 2.9 is not going to > get > > > much attention. Looking at git history, branch-2.9's got just 13 > commits. > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Mar 11, 2020 at 5:35 PM 张铎(Duo Zhang) <[email protected]> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > Hadoop now has a wiki page to show the EOL releases lines > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/HADOOP/EOL+(End-of-life)+Release+Branches > > > > > > > > > > > > 2.8.x is finally dead, so we'd better at least upgrade to 2.9.x in > > newer > > > > release lines. > > > > > > > > And in this announcement > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/r348f7bc93a522f05b7cce78a911854d128a6b1b8bd8124bad4d06ce6%40%3Cuser.hadoop.apache.org%3E > > > > > > > > > > > > They even say you'd better upgrade to 2.10+. > > > > > > > > For me, I prefer we just bump the hadoop version of 2.3.0 directly to > > > > 2.10.0, as 2.9.x is almost dead too. And since we still support > hadoop > > > > 2.9.x on 2.2.x release line, which is the current stable release > line, > > > > which should be fine for users. > > > > > > > > And for master branch, I suggest we just drop all the support for > > hadoop > > > > 2.x and bump hadoop to 3.1.x directly. > > > > > > > > Thoughts? Thanks. > > > > > > > > > >
