Re: HBase - stable versions
BTW, can somebody explain the function/purpose of 0.95.2. Do the community expect 0.95.2 to be used in a prod env or does it have to 0.96.0 for that ? Also, I have some development hiccups with it (like cannot find the jar on the maven repo etc, if somebody can provide pointers that would be great). Regards, - kiru From: Ameya Kanitkar am...@groupon.com To: user@hbase.apache.org; Kiru Pakkirisamy kirupakkiris...@yahoo.com Cc: d...@hbase.apache.org d...@hbase.apache.org Sent: Monday, September 9, 2013 5:02 PM Subject: Re: HBase - stable versions We (Groupon), will also stick to 0.94 for near future. Ameya On Mon, Sep 9, 2013 at 4:03 PM, Kiru Pakkirisamy kirupakkiris...@yahoo.comwrote: When is 0.96 release being planned ? Right now we are testing against 0.95.2 as this does not seem to have the HBASE-9410 bug. Regards, - kiru From: Enis Söztutar e...@apache.org To: hbase-user user@hbase.apache.org Cc: d...@hbase.apache.org d...@hbase.apache.org Sent: Wednesday, September 4, 2013 6:20 PM Subject: Re: HBase - stable versions As long as there is interest for 0.94, we will care for 0.94. However, when 0.96.0 comes out, it will be marked as the next stable release, so I expect that we would promote newcomers that branch. Any committer can propose any branch and release candidate any time, so if there are road blocks for 0.94.x mainline, you might as well propose a new branch. Enis On Wed, Sep 4, 2013 at 4:29 PM, Varun Sharma va...@pinterest.com wrote: We, at Pinterest, are also going to stay on 0.94 for a while since it has worked well for us and we don't have the resources to test 0.96 in the EC2 environment. That may change in the future but we don't know when... On Wed, Sep 4, 2013 at 1:53 PM, Andrew Purtell apurt...@apache.org wrote: If LarsH is willing to stay on as RM for 0.94 then IMHO we should proceed as today with the exception that 0.96 is what the stable symlink points to. As long as 0.94 has someone willing to RM and users such as Salesforce then there will be individuals there and in the community motivated to keep it in good working order with occasional point releases. We should not throw up roadblocks or adopt an arbitrary policy, as long as new features arrive in the branch as backports, and the changes maintain our point release compatibility criteria (rolling restarts possible, no API regressions). On Tue, Sep 3, 2013 at 5:30 PM, lars hofhansl la...@apache.org wrote: With 0.96 being imminent we should start a discussion about continuing support for 0.94. 0.92 became stale pretty soon after 0.94 was released. The relationship between 0.94 and 0.96 is slightly different, though: 1. 0.92.x could be upgraded to 0.94.x without downtime 2. 0.92 clients and servers are mutually compatible with 0.94 clients and servers 3. the user facing API stayed backward compatible None of the above is true when moving from 0.94 to 0.96+. Upgrade from 0.94 to 0.96 will require a one-way upgrade process including downtime, and client and server need to be upgraded in lockstep. I would like to have an informal poll about who's using 0.94 and is planning to continue to use it; and who is planning to upgrade from 0.94 to 0.96. Should we officially continue support for 0.94? How long? Thanks. -- Lars -- Best regards, - Andy Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet Hein (via Tom White)
Re: HBase - stable versions
That's linux terminology. 0.95 is a developper release It should not go in production. When it's ready for production, it will be released as 0.96 0.96 should be ready soon, tests (and fixes are in progress). There is already a release candidate available: 0.96.RC0. There should be a new release candidate (soon as well :-)) For details about the 0.96 RC0 see this thread: http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.comp.java.hadoop.hbase.devel/39592 Cheers, Nicolas On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 8:22 AM, Kiru Pakkirisamy kirupakkiris...@yahoo.com wrote: BTW, can somebody explain the function/purpose of 0.95.2. Do the community expect 0.95.2 to be used in a prod env or does it have to 0.96.0 for that ? Also, I have some development hiccups with it (like cannot find the jar on the maven repo etc, if somebody can provide pointers that would be great). Regards, - kiru From: Ameya Kanitkar am...@groupon.com To: user@hbase.apache.org; Kiru Pakkirisamy kirupakkiris...@yahoo.com Cc: d...@hbase.apache.org d...@hbase.apache.org Sent: Monday, September 9, 2013 5:02 PM Subject: Re: HBase - stable versions We (Groupon), will also stick to 0.94 for near future. Ameya On Mon, Sep 9, 2013 at 4:03 PM, Kiru Pakkirisamy kirupakkiris...@yahoo.comwrote: When is 0.96 release being planned ? Right now we are testing against 0.95.2 as this does not seem to have the HBASE-9410 bug. Regards, - kiru From: Enis Söztutar e...@apache.org To: hbase-user user@hbase.apache.org Cc: d...@hbase.apache.org d...@hbase.apache.org Sent: Wednesday, September 4, 2013 6:20 PM Subject: Re: HBase - stable versions As long as there is interest for 0.94, we will care for 0.94. However, when 0.96.0 comes out, it will be marked as the next stable release, so I expect that we would promote newcomers that branch. Any committer can propose any branch and release candidate any time, so if there are road blocks for 0.94.x mainline, you might as well propose a new branch. Enis On Wed, Sep 4, 2013 at 4:29 PM, Varun Sharma va...@pinterest.com wrote: We, at Pinterest, are also going to stay on 0.94 for a while since it has worked well for us and we don't have the resources to test 0.96 in the EC2 environment. That may change in the future but we don't know when... On Wed, Sep 4, 2013 at 1:53 PM, Andrew Purtell apurt...@apache.org wrote: If LarsH is willing to stay on as RM for 0.94 then IMHO we should proceed as today with the exception that 0.96 is what the stable symlink points to. As long as 0.94 has someone willing to RM and users such as Salesforce then there will be individuals there and in the community motivated to keep it in good working order with occasional point releases. We should not throw up roadblocks or adopt an arbitrary policy, as long as new features arrive in the branch as backports, and the changes maintain our point release compatibility criteria (rolling restarts possible, no API regressions). On Tue, Sep 3, 2013 at 5:30 PM, lars hofhansl la...@apache.org wrote: With 0.96 being imminent we should start a discussion about continuing support for 0.94. 0.92 became stale pretty soon after 0.94 was released. The relationship between 0.94 and 0.96 is slightly different, though: 1. 0.92.x could be upgraded to 0.94.x without downtime 2. 0.92 clients and servers are mutually compatible with 0.94 clients and servers 3. the user facing API stayed backward compatible None of the above is true when moving from 0.94 to 0.96+. Upgrade from 0.94 to 0.96 will require a one-way upgrade process including downtime, and client and server need to be upgraded in lockstep. I would like to have an informal poll about who's using 0.94 and is planning to continue to use it; and who is planning to upgrade from 0.94 to 0.96. Should we officially continue support for 0.94? How long? Thanks. -- Lars -- Best regards, - Andy Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet Hein (via Tom White)
Re: HBase - stable versions
Nicolas, makes sense. Thanks for the explanation. Regards, - kiru From: Nicolas Liochon nkey...@gmail.com To: user user@hbase.apache.org; Kiru Pakkirisamy kirupakkiris...@yahoo.com Cc: d...@hbase.apache.org d...@hbase.apache.org Sent: Tuesday, September 10, 2013 12:31 AM Subject: Re: HBase - stable versions That's linux terminology. 0.95 is a developper release It should not go in production. When it's ready for production, it will be released as 0.96 0.96 should be ready soon, tests (and fixes are in progress). There is already a release candidate available: 0.96.RC0. There should be a new release candidate (soon as well :-)) For details about the 0.96 RC0 see this thread: http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.comp.java.hadoop.hbase.devel/39592 Cheers, Nicolas On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 8:22 AM, Kiru Pakkirisamy kirupakkiris...@yahoo.com wrote: BTW, can somebody explain the function/purpose of 0.95.2. Do the community expect 0.95.2 to be used in a prod env or does it have to 0.96.0 for that ? Also, I have some development hiccups with it (like cannot find the jar on the maven repo etc, if somebody can provide pointers that would be great). Regards, - kiru From: Ameya Kanitkar am...@groupon.com To: user@hbase.apache.org; Kiru Pakkirisamy kirupakkiris...@yahoo.com Cc: d...@hbase.apache.org d...@hbase.apache.org Sent: Monday, September 9, 2013 5:02 PM Subject: Re: HBase - stable versions We (Groupon), will also stick to 0.94 for near future. Ameya On Mon, Sep 9, 2013 at 4:03 PM, Kiru Pakkirisamy kirupakkiris...@yahoo.comwrote: When is 0.96 release being planned ? Right now we are testing against 0.95.2 as this does not seem to have the HBASE-9410 bug. Regards, - kiru From: Enis Söztutar e...@apache.org To: hbase-user user@hbase.apache.org Cc: d...@hbase.apache.org d...@hbase.apache.org Sent: Wednesday, September 4, 2013 6:20 PM Subject: Re: HBase - stable versions As long as there is interest for 0.94, we will care for 0.94. However, when 0.96.0 comes out, it will be marked as the next stable release, so I expect that we would promote newcomers that branch. Any committer can propose any branch and release candidate any time, so if there are road blocks for 0.94.x mainline, you might as well propose a new branch. Enis On Wed, Sep 4, 2013 at 4:29 PM, Varun Sharma va...@pinterest.com wrote: We, at Pinterest, are also going to stay on 0.94 for a while since it has worked well for us and we don't have the resources to test 0.96 in the EC2 environment. That may change in the future but we don't know when... On Wed, Sep 4, 2013 at 1:53 PM, Andrew Purtell apurt...@apache.org wrote: If LarsH is willing to stay on as RM for 0.94 then IMHO we should proceed as today with the exception that 0.96 is what the stable symlink points to. As long as 0.94 has someone willing to RM and users such as Salesforce then there will be individuals there and in the community motivated to keep it in good working order with occasional point releases. We should not throw up roadblocks or adopt an arbitrary policy, as long as new features arrive in the branch as backports, and the changes maintain our point release compatibility criteria (rolling restarts possible, no API regressions). On Tue, Sep 3, 2013 at 5:30 PM, lars hofhansl la...@apache.org wrote: With 0.96 being imminent we should start a discussion about continuing support for 0.94. 0.92 became stale pretty soon after 0.94 was released. The relationship between 0.94 and 0.96 is slightly different, though: 1. 0.92.x could be upgraded to 0.94.x without downtime 2. 0.92 clients and servers are mutually compatible with 0.94 clients and servers 3. the user facing API stayed backward compatible None of the above is true when moving from 0.94 to 0.96+. Upgrade from 0.94 to 0.96 will require a one-way upgrade process including downtime, and client and server need to be upgraded in lockstep. I would like to have an informal poll about who's using 0.94 and is planning to continue to use it; and who is planning to upgrade from 0.94 to 0.96. Should we officially continue support for 0.94? How long? Thanks. -- Lars -- Best regards, - Andy Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet Hein (via Tom White)
Re: HBase - stable versions
Even we will use 0.94 for foreseeable future. On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 9:29 PM, Kiru Pakkirisamy kirupakkiris...@yahoo.com wrote: Nicolas, makes sense. Thanks for the explanation. Regards, - kiru From: Nicolas Liochon nkey...@gmail.com To: user user@hbase.apache.org; Kiru Pakkirisamy kirupakkiris...@yahoo.com Cc: d...@hbase.apache.org d...@hbase.apache.org Sent: Tuesday, September 10, 2013 12:31 AM Subject: Re: HBase - stable versions That's linux terminology. 0.95 is a developper release It should not go in production. When it's ready for production, it will be released as 0.96 0.96 should be ready soon, tests (and fixes are in progress). There is already a release candidate available: 0.96.RC0. There should be a new release candidate (soon as well :-)) For details about the 0.96 RC0 see this thread: http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.comp.java.hadoop.hbase.devel/39592 Cheers, Nicolas On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 8:22 AM, Kiru Pakkirisamy kirupakkiris...@yahoo.com wrote: BTW, can somebody explain the function/purpose of 0.95.2. Do the community expect 0.95.2 to be used in a prod env or does it have to 0.96.0 for that ? Also, I have some development hiccups with it (like cannot find the jar on the maven repo etc, if somebody can provide pointers that would be great). Regards, - kiru From: Ameya Kanitkar am...@groupon.com To: user@hbase.apache.org; Kiru Pakkirisamy kirupakkiris...@yahoo.com Cc: d...@hbase.apache.org d...@hbase.apache.org Sent: Monday, September 9, 2013 5:02 PM Subject: Re: HBase - stable versions We (Groupon), will also stick to 0.94 for near future. Ameya On Mon, Sep 9, 2013 at 4:03 PM, Kiru Pakkirisamy kirupakkiris...@yahoo.comwrote: When is 0.96 release being planned ? Right now we are testing against 0.95.2 as this does not seem to have the HBASE-9410 bug. Regards, - kiru From: Enis Söztutar e...@apache.org To: hbase-user user@hbase.apache.org Cc: d...@hbase.apache.org d...@hbase.apache.org Sent: Wednesday, September 4, 2013 6:20 PM Subject: Re: HBase - stable versions As long as there is interest for 0.94, we will care for 0.94. However, when 0.96.0 comes out, it will be marked as the next stable release, so I expect that we would promote newcomers that branch. Any committer can propose any branch and release candidate any time, so if there are road blocks for 0.94.x mainline, you might as well propose a new branch. Enis On Wed, Sep 4, 2013 at 4:29 PM, Varun Sharma va...@pinterest.com wrote: We, at Pinterest, are also going to stay on 0.94 for a while since it has worked well for us and we don't have the resources to test 0.96 in the EC2 environment. That may change in the future but we don't know when... On Wed, Sep 4, 2013 at 1:53 PM, Andrew Purtell apurt...@apache.org wrote: If LarsH is willing to stay on as RM for 0.94 then IMHO we should proceed as today with the exception that 0.96 is what the stable symlink points to. As long as 0.94 has someone willing to RM and users such as Salesforce then there will be individuals there and in the community motivated to keep it in good working order with occasional point releases. We should not throw up roadblocks or adopt an arbitrary policy, as long as new features arrive in the branch as backports, and the changes maintain our point release compatibility criteria (rolling restarts possible, no API regressions). On Tue, Sep 3, 2013 at 5:30 PM, lars hofhansl la...@apache.org wrote: With 0.96 being imminent we should start a discussion about continuing support for 0.94. 0.92 became stale pretty soon after 0.94 was released. The relationship between 0.94 and 0.96 is slightly different, though: 1. 0.92.x could be upgraded to 0.94.x without downtime 2. 0.92 clients and servers are mutually compatible with 0.94 clients and servers 3. the user facing API stayed backward compatible None of the above is true when moving from 0.94 to 0.96+. Upgrade from 0.94 to 0.96 will require a one-way upgrade process including downtime, and client and server need to be upgraded in lockstep. I would like to have an informal poll about who's using 0.94 and is planning to continue to use it; and who is planning to upgrade from 0.94 to 0.96. Should we officially continue support for 0.94? How long? Thanks. -- Lars -- Best regards, - Andy Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet Hein (via Tom White
Re: HBase - stable versions
I should also explicitly state that we (Salesforce) will stay with 0.94 for the foreseeable future. We will continue backport fixes that we need. If those are not acceptable or accepted into the open source 0.94 branch, they will have to go into an Salesforce internal repository. I would really like to avoid that (essentially a fork), so I would offer to start having stable tags, i.e. we keep making changes in 0.94.x, and declare (say) 0.94.12 stable and have 0.94.12.1, etc, releases (much like what is done in Linux) We also currently have no resources to port Phoenix over to 0.96 (but if somebody wanted to step up, that would be greatly appreciated, of course). Thoughts? Comments? Concerns? -- Lars - Original Message - From: lars hofhansl la...@apache.org To: hbase-dev d...@hbase.apache.org; hbase-user user@hbase.apache.org Cc: Sent: Tuesday, September 3, 2013 5:30 PM Subject: HBase - stable versions With 0.96 being imminent we should start a discussion about continuing support for 0.94. 0.92 became stale pretty soon after 0.94 was released. The relationship between 0.94 and 0.96 is slightly different, though: 1. 0.92.x could be upgraded to 0.94.x without downtime 2. 0.92 clients and servers are mutually compatible with 0.94 clients and servers 3. the user facing API stayed backward compatible None of the above is true when moving from 0.94 to 0.96+. Upgrade from 0.94 to 0.96 will require a one-way upgrade process including downtime, and client and server need to be upgraded in lockstep. I would like to have an informal poll about who's using 0.94 and is planning to continue to use it; and who is planning to upgrade from 0.94 to 0.96. Should we officially continue support for 0.94? How long? Thanks. -- Lars
Re: HBase - stable versions
It's open source. My personal point of view is that if someone is willing to spend time on the backport, there should be no issue, if the regression risk is clearly acceptable the rolling restart possible. If it's necessary (i.e. there is no agreement of the risk level), then we could as well go for a 94.12.1 solution. I don't think we need to create this branch now: this branch should be created on when and if we cannot find an agreement on a specific jira. Nicolas On Wed, Sep 4, 2013 at 6:53 PM, lars hofhansl la...@apache.org wrote: I should also explicitly state that we (Salesforce) will stay with 0.94 for the foreseeable future. We will continue backport fixes that we need. If those are not acceptable or accepted into the open source 0.94 branch, they will have to go into an Salesforce internal repository. I would really like to avoid that (essentially a fork), so I would offer to start having stable tags, i.e. we keep making changes in 0.94.x, and declare (say) 0.94.12 stable and have 0.94.12.1, etc, releases (much like what is done in Linux) We also currently have no resources to port Phoenix over to 0.96 (but if somebody wanted to step up, that would be greatly appreciated, of course). Thoughts? Comments? Concerns? -- Lars - Original Message - From: lars hofhansl la...@apache.org To: hbase-dev d...@hbase.apache.org; hbase-user user@hbase.apache.org Cc: Sent: Tuesday, September 3, 2013 5:30 PM Subject: HBase - stable versions With 0.96 being imminent we should start a discussion about continuing support for 0.94. 0.92 became stale pretty soon after 0.94 was released. The relationship between 0.94 and 0.96 is slightly different, though: 1. 0.92.x could be upgraded to 0.94.x without downtime 2. 0.92 clients and servers are mutually compatible with 0.94 clients and servers 3. the user facing API stayed backward compatible None of the above is true when moving from 0.94 to 0.96+. Upgrade from 0.94 to 0.96 will require a one-way upgrade process including downtime, and client and server need to be upgraded in lockstep. I would like to have an informal poll about who's using 0.94 and is planning to continue to use it; and who is planning to upgrade from 0.94 to 0.96. Should we officially continue support for 0.94? How long? Thanks. -- Lars
Re: HBase - stable versions
+1 to what Nicolas said. That goes for Phoenix as well. It's open source too. We do plan to port to 0.96 when our user community (Salesforce.com, of course, being one of them) demands it. Thanks, James On Wed, Sep 4, 2013 at 10:11 AM, Nicolas Liochon nkey...@gmail.com wrote: It's open source. My personal point of view is that if someone is willing to spend time on the backport, there should be no issue, if the regression risk is clearly acceptable the rolling restart possible. If it's necessary (i.e. there is no agreement of the risk level), then we could as well go for a 94.12.1 solution. I don't think we need to create this branch now: this branch should be created on when and if we cannot find an agreement on a specific jira. Nicolas On Wed, Sep 4, 2013 at 6:53 PM, lars hofhansl la...@apache.org wrote: I should also explicitly state that we (Salesforce) will stay with 0.94 for the foreseeable future. We will continue backport fixes that we need. If those are not acceptable or accepted into the open source 0.94 branch, they will have to go into an Salesforce internal repository. I would really like to avoid that (essentially a fork), so I would offer to start having stable tags, i.e. we keep making changes in 0.94.x, and declare (say) 0.94.12 stable and have 0.94.12.1, etc, releases (much like what is done in Linux) We also currently have no resources to port Phoenix over to 0.96 (but if somebody wanted to step up, that would be greatly appreciated, of course). Thoughts? Comments? Concerns? -- Lars - Original Message - From: lars hofhansl la...@apache.org To: hbase-dev d...@hbase.apache.org; hbase-user user@hbase.apache.org Cc: Sent: Tuesday, September 3, 2013 5:30 PM Subject: HBase - stable versions With 0.96 being imminent we should start a discussion about continuing support for 0.94. 0.92 became stale pretty soon after 0.94 was released. The relationship between 0.94 and 0.96 is slightly different, though: 1. 0.92.x could be upgraded to 0.94.x without downtime 2. 0.92 clients and servers are mutually compatible with 0.94 clients and servers 3. the user facing API stayed backward compatible None of the above is true when moving from 0.94 to 0.96+. Upgrade from 0.94 to 0.96 will require a one-way upgrade process including downtime, and client and server need to be upgraded in lockstep. I would like to have an informal poll about who's using 0.94 and is planning to continue to use it; and who is planning to upgrade from 0.94 to 0.96. Should we officially continue support for 0.94? How long? Thanks. -- Lars
Re: HBase - stable versions
This maybe a newbie or dumb question but I believe, this does not affect or apply to HBase distributions by other vendors like HortonWorks or Cloudera. If someone is using one of the versions of distributions provided by them then it is up to them (and not people and community here) what and till when they are going to support it. Regards, Shahab On Wed, Sep 4, 2013 at 1:33 PM, James Taylor jtay...@salesforce.com wrote: +1 to what Nicolas said. That goes for Phoenix as well. It's open source too. We do plan to port to 0.96 when our user community (Salesforce.com, of course, being one of them) demands it. Thanks, James On Wed, Sep 4, 2013 at 10:11 AM, Nicolas Liochon nkey...@gmail.com wrote: It's open source. My personal point of view is that if someone is willing to spend time on the backport, there should be no issue, if the regression risk is clearly acceptable the rolling restart possible. If it's necessary (i.e. there is no agreement of the risk level), then we could as well go for a 94.12.1 solution. I don't think we need to create this branch now: this branch should be created on when and if we cannot find an agreement on a specific jira. Nicolas On Wed, Sep 4, 2013 at 6:53 PM, lars hofhansl la...@apache.org wrote: I should also explicitly state that we (Salesforce) will stay with 0.94 for the foreseeable future. We will continue backport fixes that we need. If those are not acceptable or accepted into the open source 0.94 branch, they will have to go into an Salesforce internal repository. I would really like to avoid that (essentially a fork), so I would offer to start having stable tags, i.e. we keep making changes in 0.94.x, and declare (say) 0.94.12 stable and have 0.94.12.1, etc, releases (much like what is done in Linux) We also currently have no resources to port Phoenix over to 0.96 (but if somebody wanted to step up, that would be greatly appreciated, of course). Thoughts? Comments? Concerns? -- Lars - Original Message - From: lars hofhansl la...@apache.org To: hbase-dev d...@hbase.apache.org; hbase-user user@hbase.apache.org Cc: Sent: Tuesday, September 3, 2013 5:30 PM Subject: HBase - stable versions With 0.96 being imminent we should start a discussion about continuing support for 0.94. 0.92 became stale pretty soon after 0.94 was released. The relationship between 0.94 and 0.96 is slightly different, though: 1. 0.92.x could be upgraded to 0.94.x without downtime 2. 0.92 clients and servers are mutually compatible with 0.94 clients and servers 3. the user facing API stayed backward compatible None of the above is true when moving from 0.94 to 0.96+. Upgrade from 0.94 to 0.96 will require a one-way upgrade process including downtime, and client and server need to be upgraded in lockstep. I would like to have an informal poll about who's using 0.94 and is planning to continue to use it; and who is planning to upgrade from 0.94 to 0.96. Should we officially continue support for 0.94? How long? Thanks. -- Lars
Re: HBase - stable versions
It's a very good point. Most people will go to 0.96 when CDH and Hortonworks support it. On 9/4/13 2:55 PM, Shahab Yunus shahab.yu...@gmail.com wrote: This maybe a newbie or dumb question but I believe, this does not affect or apply to HBase distributions by other vendors like HortonWorks or Cloudera. If someone is using one of the versions of distributions provided by them then it is up to them (and not people and community here) what and till when they are going to support it. Regards, Shahab On Wed, Sep 4, 2013 at 1:33 PM, James Taylor jtay...@salesforce.com wrote: +1 to what Nicolas said. That goes for Phoenix as well. It's open source too. We do plan to port to 0.96 when our user community (Salesforce.com, of course, being one of them) demands it. Thanks, James On Wed, Sep 4, 2013 at 10:11 AM, Nicolas Liochon nkey...@gmail.com wrote: It's open source. My personal point of view is that if someone is willing to spend time on the backport, there should be no issue, if the regression risk is clearly acceptable the rolling restart possible. If it's necessary (i.e. there is no agreement of the risk level), then we could as well go for a 94.12.1 solution. I don't think we need to create this branch now: this branch should be created on when and if we cannot find an agreement on a specific jira. Nicolas On Wed, Sep 4, 2013 at 6:53 PM, lars hofhansl la...@apache.org wrote: I should also explicitly state that we (Salesforce) will stay with 0.94 for the foreseeable future. We will continue backport fixes that we need. If those are not acceptable or accepted into the open source 0.94 branch, they will have to go into an Salesforce internal repository. I would really like to avoid that (essentially a fork), so I would offer to start having stable tags, i.e. we keep making changes in 0.94.x, and declare (say) 0.94.12 stable and have 0.94.12.1, etc, releases (much like what is done in Linux) We also currently have no resources to port Phoenix over to 0.96 (but if somebody wanted to step up, that would be greatly appreciated, of course). Thoughts? Comments? Concerns? -- Lars - Original Message - From: lars hofhansl la...@apache.org To: hbase-dev d...@hbase.apache.org; hbase-user user@hbase.apache.org Cc: Sent: Tuesday, September 3, 2013 5:30 PM Subject: HBase - stable versions With 0.96 being imminent we should start a discussion about continuing support for 0.94. 0.92 became stale pretty soon after 0.94 was released. The relationship between 0.94 and 0.96 is slightly different, though: 1. 0.92.x could be upgraded to 0.94.x without downtime 2. 0.92 clients and servers are mutually compatible with 0.94 clients and servers 3. the user facing API stayed backward compatible None of the above is true when moving from 0.94 to 0.96+. Upgrade from 0.94 to 0.96 will require a one-way upgrade process including downtime, and client and server need to be upgraded in lockstep. I would like to have an informal poll about who's using 0.94 and is planning to continue to use it; and who is planning to upgrade from 0.94 to 0.96. Should we officially continue support for 0.94? How long? Thanks. -- Lars
Re: HBase - stable versions
If LarsH is willing to stay on as RM for 0.94 then IMHO we should proceed as today with the exception that 0.96 is what the stable symlink points to. As long as 0.94 has someone willing to RM and users such as Salesforce then there will be individuals there and in the community motivated to keep it in good working order with occasional point releases. We should not throw up roadblocks or adopt an arbitrary policy, as long as new features arrive in the branch as backports, and the changes maintain our point release compatibility criteria (rolling restarts possible, no API regressions). On Tue, Sep 3, 2013 at 5:30 PM, lars hofhansl la...@apache.org wrote: With 0.96 being imminent we should start a discussion about continuing support for 0.94. 0.92 became stale pretty soon after 0.94 was released. The relationship between 0.94 and 0.96 is slightly different, though: 1. 0.92.x could be upgraded to 0.94.x without downtime 2. 0.92 clients and servers are mutually compatible with 0.94 clients and servers 3. the user facing API stayed backward compatible None of the above is true when moving from 0.94 to 0.96+. Upgrade from 0.94 to 0.96 will require a one-way upgrade process including downtime, and client and server need to be upgraded in lockstep. I would like to have an informal poll about who's using 0.94 and is planning to continue to use it; and who is planning to upgrade from 0.94 to 0.96. Should we officially continue support for 0.94? How long? Thanks. -- Lars -- Best regards, - Andy Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet Hein (via Tom White)
Re: HBase - stable versions
We, at Pinterest, are also going to stay on 0.94 for a while since it has worked well for us and we don't have the resources to test 0.96 in the EC2 environment. That may change in the future but we don't know when... On Wed, Sep 4, 2013 at 1:53 PM, Andrew Purtell apurt...@apache.org wrote: If LarsH is willing to stay on as RM for 0.94 then IMHO we should proceed as today with the exception that 0.96 is what the stable symlink points to. As long as 0.94 has someone willing to RM and users such as Salesforce then there will be individuals there and in the community motivated to keep it in good working order with occasional point releases. We should not throw up roadblocks or adopt an arbitrary policy, as long as new features arrive in the branch as backports, and the changes maintain our point release compatibility criteria (rolling restarts possible, no API regressions). On Tue, Sep 3, 2013 at 5:30 PM, lars hofhansl la...@apache.org wrote: With 0.96 being imminent we should start a discussion about continuing support for 0.94. 0.92 became stale pretty soon after 0.94 was released. The relationship between 0.94 and 0.96 is slightly different, though: 1. 0.92.x could be upgraded to 0.94.x without downtime 2. 0.92 clients and servers are mutually compatible with 0.94 clients and servers 3. the user facing API stayed backward compatible None of the above is true when moving from 0.94 to 0.96+. Upgrade from 0.94 to 0.96 will require a one-way upgrade process including downtime, and client and server need to be upgraded in lockstep. I would like to have an informal poll about who's using 0.94 and is planning to continue to use it; and who is planning to upgrade from 0.94 to 0.96. Should we officially continue support for 0.94? How long? Thanks. -- Lars -- Best regards, - Andy Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet Hein (via Tom White)
Re: HBase - stable versions
As long as there is interest for 0.94, we will care for 0.94. However, when 0.96.0 comes out, it will be marked as the next stable release, so I expect that we would promote newcomers that branch. Any committer can propose any branch and release candidate any time, so if there are road blocks for 0.94.x mainline, you might as well propose a new branch. Enis On Wed, Sep 4, 2013 at 4:29 PM, Varun Sharma va...@pinterest.com wrote: We, at Pinterest, are also going to stay on 0.94 for a while since it has worked well for us and we don't have the resources to test 0.96 in the EC2 environment. That may change in the future but we don't know when... On Wed, Sep 4, 2013 at 1:53 PM, Andrew Purtell apurt...@apache.org wrote: If LarsH is willing to stay on as RM for 0.94 then IMHO we should proceed as today with the exception that 0.96 is what the stable symlink points to. As long as 0.94 has someone willing to RM and users such as Salesforce then there will be individuals there and in the community motivated to keep it in good working order with occasional point releases. We should not throw up roadblocks or adopt an arbitrary policy, as long as new features arrive in the branch as backports, and the changes maintain our point release compatibility criteria (rolling restarts possible, no API regressions). On Tue, Sep 3, 2013 at 5:30 PM, lars hofhansl la...@apache.org wrote: With 0.96 being imminent we should start a discussion about continuing support for 0.94. 0.92 became stale pretty soon after 0.94 was released. The relationship between 0.94 and 0.96 is slightly different, though: 1. 0.92.x could be upgraded to 0.94.x without downtime 2. 0.92 clients and servers are mutually compatible with 0.94 clients and servers 3. the user facing API stayed backward compatible None of the above is true when moving from 0.94 to 0.96+. Upgrade from 0.94 to 0.96 will require a one-way upgrade process including downtime, and client and server need to be upgraded in lockstep. I would like to have an informal poll about who's using 0.94 and is planning to continue to use it; and who is planning to upgrade from 0.94 to 0.96. Should we officially continue support for 0.94? How long? Thanks. -- Lars -- Best regards, - Andy Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet Hein (via Tom White)
HBase - stable versions
With 0.96 being imminent we should start a discussion about continuing support for 0.94. 0.92 became stale pretty soon after 0.94 was released. The relationship between 0.94 and 0.96 is slightly different, though: 1. 0.92.x could be upgraded to 0.94.x without downtime 2. 0.92 clients and servers are mutually compatible with 0.94 clients and servers 3. the user facing API stayed backward compatible None of the above is true when moving from 0.94 to 0.96+. Upgrade from 0.94 to 0.96 will require a one-way upgrade process including downtime, and client and server need to be upgraded in lockstep. I would like to have an informal poll about who's using 0.94 and is planning to continue to use it; and who is planning to upgrade from 0.94 to 0.96. Should we officially continue support for 0.94? How long? Thanks. -- Lars
