Even we will use 0.94 for foreseeable future.
On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 9:29 PM, Kiru Pakkirisamy <kirupakkiris...@yahoo.com > wrote: > Nicolas, makes sense. Thanks for the explanation. > > Regards, > - kiru > > > ________________________________ > From: Nicolas Liochon <nkey...@gmail.com> > To: user <u...@hbase.apache.org>; Kiru Pakkirisamy < > kirupakkiris...@yahoo.com> > Cc: "dev@hbase.apache.org" <dev@hbase.apache.org> > 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 < > kirupakkiris...@yahoo.com > > 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 <am...@groupon.com> > > To: u...@hbase.apache.org; Kiru Pakkirisamy <kirupakkiris...@yahoo.com> > > Cc: "dev@hbase.apache.org" <dev@hbase.apache.org> > > 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 > > <kirupakkiris...@yahoo.com>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 <e...@apache.org> > > > To: hbase-user <u...@hbase.apache.org> > > > Cc: "dev@hbase.apache.org" <dev@hbase.apache.org> > > > 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 <va...@pinterest.com> > > 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 <apurt...@apache.org> > > > > 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 > > regressions). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Sep 3, 2013 at 5:30 PM, lars hofhansl <la...@apache.org> > > > 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, > > though: > > > > > > > > > > > > 1. 0.92.x could be upgraded to 0.94.x without downtime > > > > > > 2. 0.92 clients and servers are mutually compatible with 0.94 > > clients > > > > and > > > > > > servers > > > > > > 3. the user facing API stayed backward compatible > > > > > > > > > > > > None of the above is true when moving from 0.94 to 0.96+. > > > > > > Upgrade from 0.94 to 0.96 will require a one-way upgrade process > > > > > including > > > > > > downtime, and client and server need to be upgraded in lockstep. > > > > > > > > > > > > I would like to have an informal poll about who's using 0.94 and > is > > > > > > planning to continue to use it; and who is planning to upgrade > from > > > > 0.94 > > > > > to > > > > > > 0.96. > > > > > > Should we officially continue support for 0.94? How long? > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks. > > > > > > > > > > > > -- Lars > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > Best regards, > > > > > > > > > > - Andy > > > > > > > > > > Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet > > > Hein > > > > > (via Tom White) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- Thanks and Regards, Vimal Jain
