On Fri, Nov 3, 2017 at 8:25 PM, Nick Dimiduk <ndimi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 1.2 is good, but are we aware of anything that precludes 1.1? 0.98? On disk > compatibility (HFile, WAL, AMv2) should be the limiting factor here, right? > Wire protocols have been compatible all the while... > > I don't know of anything (Anyone know of anything in here that could hamper a migration?). I suppose I could give it a go. I was just trying to get away with a minimal spread. Thanks Nick, S > On Fri, Nov 3, 2017 at 5:56 PM Zach York <zyork.contribut...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > +1 for having the minimum (supported) hbase1 version be 1.2.x. > > > > On Fri, Nov 3, 2017 at 5:30 PM, Stack <st...@duboce.net> wrote: > > > > > Over in the adjacent "[DISCUSS] hbase-2.0.0 compatibility expectations" > > > thread, we chatted some on what would be the minimum hbase-1.x version > > from > > > which you can upgrade to hbase-2. > > > > > > The last statement made on this topic by Sean was that only upgrades > from > > > 1.2.x, our current stable offering, or later should be supported. > > > > > > There was no dissent. > > > > > > We all good w/ this? Speak up if you disagree else 1.2.x becomes the > > > 'official' minimum. > > > > > > NOTES: > > > > > > + We need to agree on a minimum so we know what migrations to test. > > > + It might be possible to upgrade from versions before 1.2.x but we (or > > at > > > least I -- smile) won't have tried it or run verifications to ensure > all > > > made it over (let us know if you successfully migrate from a baseline > > that > > > precedes 1.2). > > > + Hopefully we can avoid requiring Users move to the latest on the 1.2 > > > branch. This shouldn't be necessary doing a stop/start upgrade. It > might > > be > > > needed doing a rolling upgrade. Lets see. > > > > > > Thanks, > > > St.Ack > > > > > >
