Home | About | Sematext search-lucene.com search-hadoop.com
 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
Jonathan Hsieh 2012-09-01, 00:55
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