Re: [DISCUSS] Branching for HBase 1.5 and Hadoop minimum version update (to 2.7)
Thanks for the discussion everyone. I filed HBASE-20501 to ensure everything discussed here happens for 1.5.0. On Fri, Apr 27, 2018 at 9:19 AM, Stack wrote: > On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 7:31 AM, Sean Busbey 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? > > > I think this a good way of phrasing it. > > We'd take the opportunity to remind users about our callout "Replace the > Hadoop Bundled With HBase!" from [1] recommending users upgrade their > Hadoop if < 2.7.1. > > S > > > 1. http://hbase.apache.org/book.html#hadoop > > > > > 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 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
Re: [DISCUSS] Branching for HBase 1.5 and Hadoop minimum version update (to 2.7)
On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 7:31 AM, Sean Busbey 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? I think this a good way of phrasing it. We'd take the opportunity to remind users about our callout "Replace the Hadoop Bundled With HBase!" from [1] recommending users upgrade their Hadoop if < 2.7.1. S 1. http://hbase.apache.org/book.html#hadoop > 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 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. > >> > >> > > >
Re: [DISCUSS] Branching for HBase 1.5 and Hadoop minimum version update (to 2.7)
I'm +1 then. would like to see the ref guide changes and heads-up happen prior to 1.5 branching, but since I don't have the bandwidth to do it myself I'm not going to vote against anything if it doesn't happen. On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 4:06 PM, Andrew Purtell wrote: > 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 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 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
Re: [DISCUSS] Branching for HBase 1.5 and Hadoop minimum version update (to 2.7)
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 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 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
Re: [DISCUSS] Branching for HBase 1.5 and Hadoop minimum version update (to 2.7)
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 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. >> >> >
Re: [DISCUSS] Branching for HBase 1.5 and Hadoop minimum version update (to 2.7)
+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.
Re: [DISCUSS] Branching for HBase 1.5 and Hadoop minimum version update (to 2.7)
I'm in favour of 2.7.1+ as well. A special call-out about Hadoop also seems fine. Thanks Andrew! On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 8:42 AM Andrew Purtell wrote: > I think yes > > On Wed, Apr 25, 2018 at 7:13 AM, Sean Busbey wrote: > > > How would we rephrase our compatibility guidelines? Special call-out > > section about Hadoop? > > > > On Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 10:37 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 > > > > > > -- > Best regards, > Andrew > > Words like orphans lost among the crosstalk, meaning torn from truth's > decrepit hands >- A23, Crosstalk >
Re: [DISCUSS] Branching for HBase 1.5 and Hadoop minimum version update (to 2.7)
I think yes On Wed, Apr 25, 2018 at 7:13 AM, Sean Busbey wrote: > How would we rephrase our compatibility guidelines? Special call-out > section about Hadoop? > > On Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 10:37 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 > -- Best regards, Andrew Words like orphans lost among the crosstalk, meaning torn from truth's decrepit hands - A23, Crosstalk
Re: [DISCUSS] Branching for HBase 1.5 and Hadoop minimum version update (to 2.7)
How would we rephrase our compatibility guidelines? Special call-out section about Hadoop? On Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 10:37 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
