yep! I agree that would be consistent with the previous consensus position if that's what we want to do.
I'll try to take a look at the state of 2.8 and 2.9 and see if I can answer your earlier question about "why not just go to for minimum 2.9 instead of 2.8?" On Fri, Jan 25, 2019 at 1:22 PM Andrew Purtell <[email protected]> wrote: > > By that rationale, for 1.6.0, we could look at setting the minimum Hadoop > version to 2.8. I almost have 1.5.0 out the door and Hadoop hasn't > concluded the 2.7 EOL discussion yet. > > > On Fri, Jan 25, 2019 at 11:08 AM Sean Busbey <[email protected]> wrote: > > > it's dangerous to change our default build to be something other than > > the oldest version we claim works because devs are less likely to > > notice when they make use of some new feature Hadoop added. It would > > help with what we ship in convenience packages, provided we do some > > reasonable testing of compatibility for newer client to older servers > > (or add a troubleshooting section reminder about how folks are > > supposed to replace the hadoop jars). > > > > I guess we could add nightly tests that the old versions still work, > > but I'm currently skeptical that anyone will notice if such a check > > failed. > > > > I'm also in favor of conservative approach for branch-1. Ideally I'd > > like to wait for HBase 3.y to have our default Hadoop be 3.y. Without > > spiraling into a discussion about HBase major versions, I think we > > need to start shipping alpha HBase 3 builds once the stable pointer > > moves to a branch-2 based release. > > > > We've previously dropped support for Hadoop minor versions on a new > > HBase minor release. That's how 2.7 became the minimum version for > > 1.4.z and 1.5.z[1], there's a specific call out in the compatibility > > guidelines about how we can't be as conservative as we would prefer > > for something like Hadoop[2]. We also have talked about how we want to > > work towards dropping dependencies with impactful (open and no work > > around) CVEs[3]. If Hadoop doesn't keep doing 2.7 releases and we plan > > to do HBase 1.y releases for ~years, then it's probably a short window > > before we'll need to drop it. If that's unacceptable we should push > > back on the DISCUSS I linked at start of thread. Even if it's "HBase > > will get some contributors to show up in Hadoop and start running 2.7 > > releases" that would be better than e.g. us forking it here. > > > > [1]: > > "[DISCUSS] Branching for HBase 1.5 and Hadoop minimum version update (to > > 2.7)" > > https://s.apache.org/FS2m > > > > [2]: > > We have even stronger language in the guide where we say if Hadoop > > doesn't keep doing releases we drop the supported marker. > > > > http://hbase.apache.org/book.html#hbase.versioning.compat > > > > [3]: > > "[DISCUSS] Changing hadoop check versions in our hbase-personality?" > > https://s.apache.org/uQk2 > > > > > > On Fri, Jan 25, 2019 at 11:29 AM Andrew Purtell > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > I don't think we can drop support like that for minors per our > > compatibility guidelines. I don't know how many run 2.7 or 2.8 in > > production. We use 2.7 so for our own sake I'm -1 on this proposal. However > > we could change the default 2.x version we build against to 2.9.2. Shall we > > discuss that ? > > > > > > I have no opinion on what should be the default build profile for > > branch-2. For branch-1 it needs to stay at 2.x for now as I am not able to > > build it successfully with the 3.x profile. I think it is also pretty > > unlikely someone will opt to use our 1.x with Hadoop 3. We could ask. Even > > still, let's be conservative with 1.x, please. > > > > > > > > > > On Jan 25, 2019, at 5:27 AM, 张铎(Duo Zhang) <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > I think we can drop the support of 2.7.x and 2.8.x when releasing > > 2.2.0 and > > > > 1.5.0? > > > > > > > > And is it the time to change our default building profile from hadoop2 > > to > > > > hadoop3? > > > > > > > > Andrew Purtell <[email protected]> 于2019年1月25日周五 上午11:22写道： > > > > > > > >> We could see what 2.9.2 looks like in terms of suitability and > > stability. > > > >> Is there any reason to look at 2.8 instead of jumping directly to 2.9? > > > >> > > > >> > > > >>> On Thu, Jan 24, 2019 at 1:33 PM Sean Busbey <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > >>> > > > >>> heads up that the Apache Hadoop project is discussing marking their > > 2.7 > > > >>> release line as EOL: > > > >>> > > > >>> https://s.apache.org/Nm83 > > > >>> > > > >>> Hadoop 2.7.1+ is the most recent Hadoop release line to get the "(y)" > > > >>> marker in our Hadoop matrix for HBase branches-1. It's also the > > earliest > > > >>> Hadoop release line to get the same for our HBase branches-2. > > > >>> > > > >>> If folks want to weigh in on that discussion, now's the time. What, > > if > > > >>> anything, do we as a community want to do to prepare for when it > > > >> eventually > > > >>> happens? > > > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> -- > > > >> Best regards, > > > >> Andrew > > > >> > > > >> Words like orphans lost among the crosstalk, meaning torn from truth's > > > >> decrepit hands > > > >> - A23, Crosstalk > > > >> > > > > > -- > Best regards, > Andrew > > Words like orphans lost among the crosstalk, meaning torn from truth's > decrepit hands > - A23, Crosstalk
