We (Groupon), will also stick to 0.94 for near future. Ameya
On Mon, Sep 9, 2013 at 4:03 PM, Kiru Pakkirisamy <[email protected]>wrote: > 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 <[email protected]> > To: hbase-user <[email protected]> > Cc: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> > 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 <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> > > 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 <[email protected]> > 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) > > > > > >
