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

Switch to Plain View
HBase >> mail # dev >> 0.94 Backports.


+
Elliott Clark 2013-02-07, 23:15
+
Jimmy Xiang 2013-02-07, 23:22
+
lars hofhansl 2013-02-07, 23:37
+
Andrew Purtell 2013-02-08, 01:19
+
Andrew Purtell 2013-02-08, 01:20
+
Enis Söztutar 2013-02-08, 19:56
+
Jonathan Hsieh 2013-02-12, 00:24
+
lars hofhansl 2013-02-12, 00:38
Copy link to this message
-
Re: 0.94 Backports.
Thanks guys.

Jon.

On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 4:38 PM, lars hofhansl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Commented on the jira... I'll revert.
>
>
>
> ________________________________
>  From: Jonathan Hsieh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Monday, February 11, 2013 4:24 PM
> Subject: Re: 0.94 Backports.
>
> Hey guys, I saw HBASE-7814 [1] -- a backport committed to 0.94 that
> makes HBase 0.94 now require Hadoop 1.0 (instead of the older
> hadoops).  This was supposed to be a new requirement for hbase 0.96.0.
> [2]
>
> Are we ok with making the next 0.94 upgrade incompatible?   (And if we
> are we need to release note this kind of stuff).
>
> Jon.
>
> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-7814
>
> [2] http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/hbase-dev/201210.mbox/%[EMAIL PROTECTED]%3E
>
>
> On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 11:56 AM, Enis Söztutar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> The backporting situation for 0.94 is an exception it seems, because of the
>> fact that 96 is so late. But until 96 comes out, we can keep up the current
>> approach. It has worked mostly for the time being.
>>
>> Enis
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 5:20 PM, Andrew Purtell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>> That said, let's make sure every backport has meaningful justification
>>> (determined by consensus).
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 5:19 PM, Andrew Purtell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> > -1 until we have an actual stable 0.96 release.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 3:15 PM, Elliott Clark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> >
>>> >> Lately there have been a lot of issues being committed to trunk and
>>> >> also back-ported to 0.94 (I've done it myself too).  Since we're so far
>>> >> into 0.94's release cycle should we think about not allowing minor
>>> >> features
>>> >> and code clean ups to be back-ported ?
>>> >
>>> >
>>>
>>> --
>>> Best regards,
>>>
>>>    - Andy
>>>
>>> Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet Hein
>>> (via Tom White)
>>>
>
>
>
> --
> // Jonathan Hsieh (shay)
> // Software Engineer, Cloudera
> // [EMAIL PROTECTED]

--
// Jonathan Hsieh (shay)
// Software Engineer, Cloudera
// [EMAIL PROTECTED]
+
Ted Yu 2013-02-12, 00:43
+
Ted Yu 2013-02-12, 00:32
+
Jonathan Hsieh 2013-02-12, 00:48
+
Stack 2013-02-12, 00:59
+
Enis Söztutar 2013-02-12, 01:35
+
Ted 2013-02-12, 01:40
+
Andrew Purtell 2013-02-12, 03:20
+
Jonathan Hsieh 2013-02-12, 03:32
+
Andrew Purtell 2013-02-12, 03:36
+
Jonathan Hsieh 2013-02-12, 03:45
+
Andrew Purtell 2013-02-12, 03:48
+
Ted Yu 2013-02-12, 03:27
+
Andrew Purtell 2013-02-12, 03:32
+
lars hofhansl 2013-02-12, 04:16