Andrew Purtell 2011-11-16, 23:50
Stack 2011-11-16, 23:52
Ted Yu 2011-11-16, 23:54
Todd Lipcon 2011-11-16, 23:57
Andrew Purtell 2011-11-17, 00:01
Todd Lipcon 2011-11-17, 00:05
Andrew Purtell 2011-11-17, 00:10
Andrew Purtell 2011-11-17, 00:00
Ted Yu 2011-11-17, 00:03
Andrew Purtell 2011-11-16, 23:57
-Re: on HBase 1.0
Karthik Ranganathan 2011-11-17, 00:01
My 2 cents - whatever branch we decide to put out as 1.0, I think we
should have a stability/testing phase without adding too many features, so
that it is pretty stable to end users.
On 11/16/11 3:57 PM, "Andrew Purtell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> From: Stack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Andrew Purtell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> Cc: "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> Sent: Wednesday, November 16, 2011 3:52 PM
>> Subject: Re: on HBase 1.0
>> On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 3:50 PM, Andrew Purtell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>> It's possible a release of 0.20.20X (X=5 I think) as Hadoop 1.0 is
>>> The Hadoop 1.0 release is an acknowledgement of reality -- 0.20
>> in production at many places.
>>> I know we agreed to separate HBase versioning from Hadoop versioning,
>> but if we continue to number HBase as 0.X after there is a Hadoop 1.0,
>> an implicit marketing message that we feel HBase is not as ready as
>>> I propose that we consider, if and when Hadoop 1.0 is released, that
>> release HBase 1.0 off of the 0.92 branch. A subsequent release off of
>> could be 1.1 or 2.0 at the discretion of the RM and community consensus.
>> Agreed. Was thinking 0.94 could e be 1.0.0 since its getting a load
>> of 0.89-fb branch forward-ports. Would have to come out right after
>> 0.92 though.
>Releasing 0.94 as 1.0 like that, for that reason, sounds good to me, but
>I think that would imply 0.92 is merely a stepping stone to 1.0 aka 0.94.
>Perhaps that is accurate.
> - Andy
lars hofhansl 2011-11-17, 01:07
Stack 2011-11-17, 03:53
lars hofhansl 2011-11-17, 04:07
Nicolas Spiegelberg 2011-11-21, 16:31