Home | About | Sematext search-lucene.com search-hadoop.com
 Search Hadoop and all its subprojects:

Switch to Plain View
HBase, mail # dev - on HBase 1.0


+
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
Copy link to this message
-
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.
- Karthik
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]>
>> wrote:
>>>  It's possible a release of 0.20.20X (X=5 I think) as Hadoop 1.0 is
>> imminent.
>>>
>>>  The Hadoop 1.0 release is an acknowledgement of reality -- 0.20
>>>branch is
>> 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,
>>there is
>> an implicit marketing message that we feel HBase is not as ready as
>>Hadoop.
>>>
>>>
>>>  I propose that we consider, if and when Hadoop 1.0 is released, that
>>>we
>> release HBase 1.0 off of the 0.92 branch. A subsequent release off of
>>trunk
>> 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