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" <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> >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 <[email protected]> >> 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 <[email protected]> >>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 <[email protected]> >> > > To: hbase-dev <[email protected]>; hbase-user < >> [email protected]> >> > > 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 >> > > >> > > >> > >>
