Maybe add a script to 0.92 (part of hbck?) that verifies that all of your HFiles have been upgraded, and then you can trigger major compactions on any that haven't been.
On a slightly different topic, is there anything in 0.94 that breaks wire compatibility with 0.92? If not, then it seems like a waste of a rare opportunity to break wire compatibility! On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 12:25 PM, Jesse Yates <jesse.k.ya...@gmail.com>wrote: > +1 on removing it too, but maybe we should have some sort of upgrade > script to help make the switch? > > I'm thinking something pluggable on both sides of the upgrade, so people > can go from version X->Y, rather than having to upgrade first to an > intermediate and then to he version they want (right it would be going from > 0.20->.92->.96, IMO an excessive PITA). > > Just my two cents... > > - Jesse Yates > > Sent from my iPhone. > > On Jan 26, 2012, at 12:16 PM, lars hofhansl <lhofha...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > Good point. > > 0.94 is not branched, yet. And I think generally we do not support > skipping releases for upgrades. > > +1 on removing HFileV1 cruft for 0.94 > > > > > > -- Lars > > > > > > > > ________________________________ > > From: Matt Corgan <mcor...@hotpads.com> > > To: dev@hbase.apache.org; Andrew Purtell <apurt...@apache.org> > > Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2012 11:51 AM > > Subject: Re: hbase 0.94.0 > > > > Are there any thoughts about when it is ok to stop being backwards > > compatible? Mainly thinking of HFileV1... 0.92 will convert all > HFileV1's > > to HFileV2's, so it would probably have been ok to delete the code for > > HFileV1 in 0.94 and force people to upgrade through 0.92. That didn't > > actually happen, so it's looking like folks will be able to go straight > > from 0.90 to 0.94. But, perhaps it should be deleted for 0.96? > > > > > > On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 11:41 AM, Andrew Purtell <apurt...@apache.org > >wrote: > > > >> Yeah, so > >> > >> - Security (basically another coprocessor for inclusion in mainline, > >> like Constraints) > >> > >> if not in 0.92.1. > >> > >> Best regards, > >> > >> - Andy > >> > >> Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet Hein > >> (via Tom White) > >> > >> > >>> ________________________________ > >>> From: Andrew Purtell <apurt...@apache.org> > >>> To: "dev@hbase.apache.org" <dev@hbase.apache.org> > >>> Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2012 11:28 AM > >>> Subject: Re: hbase 0.94.0 > >>> > >>> A limited set of changes so we can get it out on that kind of > timeframe. > >> :-) > >>> > >>> - Constraints (is ready to go, is a coprocessor, so is in the large > >> just a new package to drop in) > >>> > >>> - Useful utilities for ops: > >>> > >>> - LoadTestTool (if Ted didn't end up backporting this into 0.92) > >>> > >>> - The store file locality thing I have mostly done, will finish it > >>> > >>> - Mikhail and crew's ongoing optimizations (HBASE-4218, etc.), the > ones > >> he considers fully baked > >>> > >>> I saw wire compatibility mentioned, for 0.96 but perhaps > >> optional/transitional code in 0.94 as well. This is something we would > try > >> out and beat up upon in staging in earnest. > >>> > >>> Best regards, > >>> > >>> - Andy > >>> > >>> Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet > Hein > >> (via Tom White) > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>>> ________________________________ > >>>> From: Stack <st...@duboce.net> > >>>> To: HBase Dev List <dev@hbase.apache.org> > >>>> Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2012 8:34 PM > >>>> Subject: hbase 0.94.0 > >>>> > >>>> Lets branch end of february? No new features thereafter. Is this too > >>>> close in? Would be grand if 0.94.0 shipped before hbasecon. What > >>>> should 0.94.0 have in it? I don't mind if the list is short. > >>>> > >>>> Unless someone else wants too, I don't mind being release manager > >>>> (will try to run a tighter ship this time around). > >>>> > >>>> St.Ack > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>> > >>> >
