In case folks aren't following over on HBASE-13339, I ran our fancy compat checking script with small changes [0] against the candidate Hadoop versions. You can investigate the resulting report [1] in more detail, but it looks like the big-ticket binary compatibility changes are related to classes and methods marked Evolving or Unstable. Outstanding issues (HADOOP-11708, HDFS-8270) aside, I think we should be able to make this update for a minor release. Our compatibility guide has a 'Y' in the "Dependency compatibility" row under "Minor", and this should be satisfied by the above report.
[0]: http://people.apache.org/~ndimiduk/check_compat_hadoop.patch [1]: http://people.apache.org/~ndimiduk/release-2.5.1_release-2.6.0_compat_report.html On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 9:53 AM, Nick Dimiduk <ndimi...@gmail.com> wrote: > Seems I misunderstood the conclusion of this discussion and pushed > prematurely HBASE-13339 (and perhaps HBASE-13149). On that ticket, Lars > states > > > I don't recall that we agreed on this. Should be in trunk (2.0) no > doubt. There was a longer discussion about 1.1 and I seem to recall > > that we said we do not want to force a major Hadoop with a minor HBase > upgrade and that instead we'd document in the book how > > build with Hadoop 2.6.0. > > My understanding of this discussion was that we have relaxed out statement > regarding adherence to semantic versioning guidelines. Thus a minor version > bump of the Hadoop dependency was acceptable, particularly considering the > bug found on 2.5. Furthermore, following Hadoop on it's Jackson version was > the prudent decision for allowing our tools to work using either common > invocation patterns. > > I got this wrong? Can someone summarize the decision here so that I can > move forward with an RC? > > Thanks, > Nick > > On Sun, Apr 26, 2015 at 11:33 AM, Nick Dimiduk <ndimi...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> I spoke with a couple of our HDFS folks on Friday, they sound confident >> that 2.7.1 will be considered production-stable. I think we can try bumping >> master to 2.7.1 when it's out. >> >> On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 10:03 AM, Sean Busbey <bus...@cloudera.com> >> wrote: >> >>> On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 11:53 AM, Elliott Clark <ecl...@apache.org> >>> wrote: >>> >>> > Is 2.7.1 going to have that not for production tag or was that tag just >>> > because of the issues found late in the cycle that are now fixed? >>> > >>> > >>> From reading from hadoop lists, I'm not sure. Including the >>> non-production >>> tag seemed to be a compromise position to get 2.7.0 out the door. The >>> cycle >>> covered so much ground that I'm not sure when it got decided. The >>> discussion also got them onto figuring out what their general policy on >>> production / non-production will be. When they come to a decision it'll >>> be >>> good to revisit and see what it means for us. >>> >>> At least some of the Hadoopers are in agreement that 2.7.1 should be >>> labeled production ready. No one was opposed to the matter, but there >>> were >>> some noticeable gaps in assenting voices[1]. >>> >>> It's supposed to be soon, so we'll see I guess? >>> >>> [1]: >>> >>> http://markmail.org/thread/zwzze6cqqgwq4rmw#query:+page:1+mid:u6pihxyy36pzz52e+state:results >>> >>> -- >>> Sean >>> >> >> >
