Sounds good. For the sake of getting "nice" version numbers, what about we do a bug fix-only release for 0.20.4 and then in 0.20.5 we break RPC compatibility and add new features.
Also I we will need to backport cluster replication to 0.20. J-D On Thu, Feb 18, 2010 at 12:53 PM, Stack <st...@duboce.net> wrote: > It looks like hbase 0.20.x will be around for longer than we were > planning on. Lets adapt. > > We should have a 0.20.4 soon that includes hbase-2180 and, IMO, it > would include a one-time breakage of the RPC interface requiring a > cluster shutdown to upgrade so we can get in "HBASE-2219 stop using > code mapping for method names in the RPC". We'd do this to set > ourselves up for being more elastic going forward. With it in place, > we can add in interface changes -- e.g. add something like the > multiput, multiget, etc. -- without breaking ability to do a rolling > restart as we move through 0.20.5, 0.20.6 etc. Then we should do > aggressive roll out of new hbase 0.20.x versions, etc. with fixes that > in particular can accomodate the evolving state of sync/flush on > hadoop 0.20 branch (hdfs-200+, etc.). > > In hbase 0.21 we keep on with replication and master rewrite. We also > take on the notion that when hbase TRUNK is baked, we'll make it run > on hadoop 0.20/0.21/0.22. > > I'm against an hbase 1.0.0 just now. > > St.Ack > > > On Wed, Feb 17, 2010 at 11:42 AM, Jean-Daniel Cryans > <jdcry...@apache.org> wrote: >> Hi devs, >> >> Yesterday Stack, Ryan, Todd (from cloudera) and me had a meeting with the FB >> team about the course of action we should take with regard to Hadoop 0.21. >> Since Y! doesn't seem committed to release it anytime soon (or even use it), >> most users will probably stick with Hadoop 0.20. >> >> What it means for us is no HDFS-265 until months and this is not a situation >> our users should/will tolerate. Dhruba agreed to work on HDFS-200 (and some >> others) to make sure we can have an equivalent support for sync (at least >> from the HBase point of view). This work is targeted at Hadoop 0.20 although >> it won't probably ever be in an Apache release. >> >> This means that the current HBase trunk should ideally support both >> 0.20+HDFS-200 and 0.21 at the same time. I opened HBASE-2233 for that. Todd >> was mentioning that if HDFS-200 isn't making the rest of Hadoop unstable, >> they could even package it in some sort of release of theirs and make our >> users' life easier. Could be a win-win. >> >> Should we still name the next major HBase release as 0.21? If it becomes >> common for HBase to support multiple Hadoop releases, should we still follow >> their version number? Could it be time for HBase 1.0? >> >> Let's hear everyone's opinion. >> >> J-D >> >
