Nicolas, makes sense. Thanks for the explanation.
From: Nicolas Liochon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: user <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Kiru Pakkirisamy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 10, 2013 12:31 AM
Subject: Re: HBase - stable versions
That's linux terminology. 0.95 is a developper release It should not go in
production. When it's ready for production, it will be released as 0.96
0.96 should be ready soon, tests (and fixes are in progress). There is
already a release candidate available: 0.96.RC0.
There should be a new release candidate (soon as well :-))
For details about the 0.96 RC0 see this thread:
On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 8:22 AM, Kiru Pakkirisamy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> BTW, can somebody explain the function/purpose of 0.95.2. Do the community
> expect 0.95.2 to be used in a prod env or does it have to 0.96.0 for that ?
> Also, I have some development hiccups with it (like cannot find the jar on
> the maven repo etc, if somebody can provide pointers that would be great).
> - kiru
> From: Ameya Kanitkar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Kiru Pakkirisamy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Cc: "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Monday, September 9, 2013 5:02 PM
> Subject: Re: HBase - stable versions
> We (Groupon), will also stick to 0.94 for near future.
> On Mon, Sep 9, 2013 at 4:03 PM, Kiru Pakkirisamy
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
> > When is 0.96 release being planned ? Right now we are testing against
> > 0.95.2 as this does not seem to have the HBASE-9410 bug.
> > Regards,
> > - kiru
> > ________________________________
> > From: Enis Söztutar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > To: hbase-user <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Cc: "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Sent: Wednesday, September 4, 2013 6:20 PM
> > Subject: Re: HBase - stable versions
> > As long as there is interest for 0.94, we will care for 0.94. However,
> > 0.96.0 comes out, it will be marked as the next stable release, so I
> > that we would promote newcomers that branch.
> > Any committer can propose any branch and release candidate any time, so
> > there are road blocks for 0.94.x mainline, you might as well propose a
> > branch.
> > Enis
> > On Wed, Sep 4, 2013 at 4:29 PM, Varun Sharma <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > We, at Pinterest, are also going to stay on 0.94 for a while since it
> > > worked well for us and we don't have the resources to test 0.96 in the
> > EC2
> > > environment. That may change in the future but we don't know when...
> > >
> > >
> > > On Wed, Sep 4, 2013 at 1:53 PM, Andrew Purtell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > If LarsH is willing to stay on as RM for 0.94 then IMHO we should
> > proceed
> > > > as today with the exception that 0.96 is what the stable symlink
> > > to.
> > > >
> > > > As long as 0.94 has someone willing to RM and users such as
> > > then
> > > > there will be individuals there and in the community motivated to
> > it
> > > > in good working order with occasional point releases. We should not
> > throw
> > > > up roadblocks or adopt an arbitrary policy, as long as new features
> > > arrive
> > > > in the branch as backports, and the changes maintain our point
> > > > compatibility criteria (rolling restarts possible, no API
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, Sep 3, 2013 at 5:30 PM, lars hofhansl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > 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,