Home | About | Sematext search-lucene.com search-hadoop.com
NEW: Monitor These Apps!
elasticsearch, apache solr, apache hbase, hadoop, redis, casssandra, amazon cloudwatch, mysql, memcached, apache kafka, apache zookeeper, apache storm, ubuntu, centOS, red hat, debian, puppet labs, java, senseiDB
 Search Hadoop and all its subprojects:

Switch to Threaded View
HBase >> mail # dev >> 0.92/0.94 compatibility and HBASE-5206


Copy link to this message
-
Re: 0.92/0.94 compatibility and HBASE-5206
I am in favor of keeping the 92.0-92.1 client compatible with 94.2/92.2.  Greg and I sketched out a scheme that would allow old 92.0-92.1 and 94.0-94.1 clients to be compatible with 92.2/94.2 servers with an xml configuration change.  

he'll fill in details.

Sent from my iPhone

On Aug 31, 2012, at 16:41, lars hofhansl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> I guess you voiced your opinion in your initial email already (you prefer to break compatibility between 0.94.0/0.94.1 with 0.94.2).
> If that is indeed the consensus, please file a jira against 0.94.2.
>
> -- Lars
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: lars hofhansl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Cc:
> Sent: Friday, August 31, 2012 4:24 PM
> Subject: Re: 0.92/0.94 compatibility and HBASE-5206
>
> What do you think we should do?
>
> 1. Breaking compatibility between minor versions is bad. (i.e. we should fix this in 0.92.2 as currently proposed)
> 2. At the same time 0.92 might be in wider distribution and that the upgrade path 0.94 might be more important (and include the fix that you propose).
>
> I'm +1 on #1 and +0 on #2.
>
>
> I agree we need better cross-version integration testing and be generally more diligent about this.
>
> -- Lars
> ________________________________
> From: Gregory Chanan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Cc: lars hofhansl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Friday, August 31, 2012 4:06 PM
> Subject: Re: 0.92/0.94 compatibility and HBASE-5206
>
> @Lars:
> you are correct that this would break compatibility between {0.94.0,
> 0.94.1} and 0.94.2.
>
> We clearly need better compatibility testing, these issues are hard to find
> by just looking at patches.
>
> Greg
>
> On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 4:03 PM, Ted Yu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> I should also apologize for HBASE-5206 where I didn't maintain
>> compatibility in the first place.
>>
>> We just need to find the solution which minimizes impact of this issue.
>>
>> Cheers
>>
>> On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 3:55 PM, lars hofhansl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Won't we then break compatibility between 0.94.0 and 0.94.1 with 0.94.2?
>>> I do not have a strong opinion about this.
>>>
>>> It was my fault that HBASE-5206 slipped into 0.94.0, I apologize for
>> that.
>>>
>>> I was going to spin the first 0.94.2 today. Is the general consensus that
>>> I should wait?
>>>
>>>
>>> -- Lars
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ________________________________
>>>   From: Gregory Chanan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>> Sent: Friday, August 31, 2012 3:13 PM
>>> Subject: 0.92/0.94 compatibility and HBASE-5206
>>>
>>> There has been some discussion on the JIRA lately about what to do about
>> a
>>> 0.92/0.94 compatibility issue.  I wanted to bring this up to a larger
>>> audience in order to solicit additional opinions.
>>>
>>> HBASE-5206 (https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-5206), which is
>> in
>>> 0.94.0 and 0.94.1, breaks compatibility with 0.92.0 and 0.92.1.  The
>> issue
>>> is described in the release notes for HBASE-5155 (of which HBASE-5206 is
>> a
>>> forward port).  Excerpted here:
>>>
>>>    This issue is an incompatible change.
>>>    If an HBase client with the changes for HBASE-5155 and a server
>> (master)
>>> without the changes for HBASE-5155 is used, then the is_enabled (from
>> HBase
>>> Shell) or isTableEnabled() (from HBaseAdmin) will return false though the
>>> table is already enabled as per the master.
>>>
>>>    If the HBase client does have the changes for HBASE-5155 and the server
>>> does not have the changes for HBASE-5155, then if we try to Enable a
>> table
>>> then the client will hang.
>>>
>>>    The reason is because,
>>>    Prior to HBASE-5155 once the table is enabled the znode in the
>> zookeeper
>>> created for the table is deleted.
>>>    After HBASE-5155 once the table is enabled the znode in the zookeeper
>>> created for the table is not deleted, whereas the same node is updated
NEW: Monitor These Apps!
elasticsearch, apache solr, apache hbase, hadoop, redis, casssandra, amazon cloudwatch, mysql, memcached, apache kafka, apache zookeeper, apache storm, ubuntu, centOS, red hat, debian, puppet labs, java, senseiDB