Home | About | Sematext search-lucene.com search-hadoop.com
 Search Hadoop and all its subprojects:

Switch to Threaded View
HBase, mail # dev - Re: HBase - stable versions


Copy link to this message
-
Re: HBase - stable versions
Vimal Jain 2013-09-10, 16:26
Even we will use 0.94 for foreseeable future.
On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 9:29 PM, Kiru Pakkirisamy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:

> Nicolas, makes sense. Thanks for the explanation.
>
> Regards,
> - kiru
>
>
> ________________________________
>  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:
> http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.comp.java.hadoop.hbase.devel/39592
>
> Cheers,
>
> Nicolas
>
>
> On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 8:22 AM, Kiru Pakkirisamy <
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > wrote:
>
> > 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).
> >
> >
> > Regards,
> > - 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.
> >
> > Ameya
> >
> >
> > 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,
> > when
> > > 0.96.0 comes out, it will be marked as the next stable release, so I
> > expect
> > > that we would promote newcomers that branch.
> > >
> > > Any committer can propose any branch and release candidate any time, so
> > if
> > > there are road blocks for 0.94.x mainline, you might as well propose a
> > new
> > > branch.
> > >
> > > Enis
> > >
> > >
> > > On Wed, Sep 4, 2013 at 4:29 PM, Varun Sharma <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > > We, at Pinterest, are also going to stay on 0.94 for a while since it
> > has
> > > > 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
> > points
> > > > to.
> > > > >
> > > > > As long as 0.94 has someone willing to RM and users such as
> > Salesforce
> > > > then
> > > > > there will be individuals there and in the community motivated to
> > keep
> > > 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
> > release
> > > > > compatibility criteria (rolling restarts possible, no API

Thanks and Regards,
Vimal Jain