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
+
Jonathan Hsieh 2013-02-12, 00:42
+
Ted Yu 2013-02-12, 00:43
+
Ted Yu 2013-02-12, 00:32
Copy link to this message
-
Re: 0.94 Backports.
Apache Hat: What a particular vendor chooses to puts in its releases
shouldn't affect an Apache release and especially if we are breaking
the
project's versioning / compatibility rules.

Jon.

On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 4:32 PM, Ted Yu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I downloaded hadoop-0.20.2+737 from Cloudera website.
>
> I found getShortUserName() in UserGroupInformation
>
> Haven't checked other 0.20.x source code yet.
>
> FYI
>
> On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 4:24 PM, Jonathan Hsieh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> 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]
+
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