lars hofhansl 2013-09-04, 00:30
lars hofhansl 2013-09-04, 16:53
Nicolas Liochon 2013-09-04, 17:11
-Re: HBase - stable versions
James Taylor 2013-09-04, 17:33
+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)
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.
> 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
> > 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
> > 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
> > 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
> > 0.96.
> > Should we officially continue support for 0.94? How long?
> > Thanks.
> > -- Lars
Shahab Yunus 2013-09-04, 18:55
Doug Meil 2013-09-04, 18:59
anil gupta 2013-09-04, 04:03
Kiru Pakkirisamy 2013-09-10, 15:59