On Thu, Feb 18, 2010 at 1:41 PM, Jean-Daniel Cryans <jdcry...@apache.org> wrote: > 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. > Above sounds good. Lets wrap up a 0.20.4 soon. Lets see if we can get another one or two "performance" tweeks in there and put it up on hadoop 0.20.2 too since it looks imminent.
St.Ack > 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 >>> >> >
