I would not like to see downgrades as a goal. This would be new. We've not done it before. Laudible goal, but we are clearly stretched already.
> On Oct 28, 2017, at 10:08 AM, Mike Drob <[email protected]> wrote: > > If downgrades are a later goal, does that mean somebody could go from some > 1.x to 2.0 to 2.y then back to 1.x? > >> On Fri, Oct 27, 2017 at 10:42 PM, Sean Busbey <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> I'd like to make downgrades a non-goal. I'd love us to support >> downgrades eventually, but that's a feature in its own right and I >> don't think we have time to get it done and still have a 2.0.0 GA in a >> reasonable time frame. >> >>> On Fri, Oct 27, 2017 at 10:40 PM, Sean Busbey <[email protected]> wrote: >>> A recent JIRA about our hfile format[1] has got me thinking about >>> expectations for upgrading. The specifics of that JIRA aren't terribly >>> important; it's the general issue I want to talk about. A >>> simplification of the mismatch in expectations between two groups is >>> that some folks place the bar for "we support rolling upgrade" at >>> rolling upgrade from 1.y.z* versions generally and others are >>> comfortable requiring an initial upgrade to some later 1.y.z version >>> first. >>> >>> Have we documented what our goals are for upgrades this major release? >>> Do we know what we have to do to get there? I've seen a few one-off >>> JIRAs to fix particular problems, but not really a plan. >>> >>> We should discuss here a bit. >>> >>> When things have some consensus is anyone willing to take point on >>> writing up the results in a scope document of sorts? I have a few good >>> examples to point you to, though they're all for features. >>> >>> >>> [1]: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-19052 >>
