A while back I offered to start making hbase 3 alpha releases so we had
something we could all refer to in test environments. That offer still
stands.


I personally would still rather those releases be off of the master branch
because we still have too many branches given our tooling for backports.

On Fri, Jan 3, 2020, 21:30 Andrew Purtell <andrew.purt...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Why not start a branch-3 and begin SNAPSHOT releasing of this branch right
> now?
>
> +1 to dropping Hadoop 2 support in HBase 3. We need the major increment to
> make this kind of change, let’s take the opportunity.
>
> Regarding Hadoop 2, the discussion I have seen indicates Hadoop thinks it
> will be releasing 2.x for up to two more years. I don’t know how many
> releases there will actually be but let’s assume at least one more 2.9, and
> a few 2.10. My employer is expected to use these versions along a
> transition path to 3.x for at least the next eighteen months. We are
> probably typical. We won’t need Hadoop 2 support for a HBase 3 but will
> need it for HBase 1 and HBase 2 for “a couple years”.
>
> > On Jan 3, 2020, at 6:52 PM, Sean Busbey <bus...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> > I personally like having Hadoop 2 support still, but I agree the cadence
> > out of Hadoop has been problematic.
> >
> > I would prefer we not change the state of Hadoop support in the master
> > branch until we have a release plan of some kind for HBase 3. I'd rather
> > that be sooner rather than later.
> >
> >> On Fri, Jan 3, 2020, 18:08 张铎(Duo Zhang) <palomino...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> Support Hadoop 2.x in 3.0.0 means we need to carry it over the whole 3.x
> >> release lines, which seems to be a problem since the Hadoop community do
> >> not want to new 2.x release line any more...
> >>
> >> Nick Dimiduk <ndimi...@gmail.com>于2020年1月4日 周六06:55写道:
> >>
> >>> On Wed, Dec 25, 2019 at 5:38 PM 张铎(Duo Zhang) <palomino...@gmail.com>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> We will only remove the hadoop 2.x support from hbase 3.x, which does
> >> not
> >>>> have a formal release plan yet, for 2.x we will still support hadoop
> >> 2.x.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> Indeed there is no formal release plan for HBase-3.0, but I hope it's
> >>> sooner than 2+ years away! What's the motivation for dropping Hadoop2
> >>> support?
> >>>
> >>> Wei-Chiu Chuang <weic...@apache.org> 于2019年12月26日周四 上午8:57写道:
> >>>>
> >>>>> With my Hadoop hat's on, we have not yet officially declared Hadoop
> >> 2.8
> >>>>> EOL. I think the 2.8 download missing from the web page is just a
> >>>> mistake.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> That being said, some of the biggest Hadoop users (LinkedIn, Yahoo,
> >>>>> Microsoft) that I am aware of are moving up from 2.7/2.8 to 2.10, and
> >>>> that
> >>>>> 2.8.5 (the last version in the 2.8 line) was released in Sep 2018,
> >> more
> >>>>> than a year ago. It doesn't look like the community has the desire to
> >>>>> continue the 2.8 line.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I think it is a little extreme to remove hadoop2 profile, given that
> >>>> Hadoop
> >>>>> 2.9 and 2.10 are still active and I expect Hadoop 2 to stay around
> >> for
> >>> at
> >>>>> least 2 years out.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On Thu, Dec 26, 2019 at 8:41 AM 张铎(Duo Zhang) <palomino...@gmail.com
> >>>
> >>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Hadoop 2.8.x has been removed from the download page of hadoop so I
> >>>> think
> >>>>>> it is time to bump the hadoop dependency to 2.9.x, on master an
> >>>> branch-2.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> And the hadoop community is going to make 2.10.x the last minor
> >>> release
> >>>>>> line for 2.x
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>
> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/cab84265d632b90d66dcd1ad957a7439a2c76a987c7e62feafb4812e%40%3Ccommon-dev.hadoop.apache.org%3E
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I think this is a sign that the community is moving forward to 3.x.
> >>> So
> >>>> I
> >>>>>> propose we make the master branch hadoop3 only, This requires
> >>> changing
> >>>>> the
> >>>>>> pom a bit to active hadoop3 profile by default and remove the
> >> hadoop2
> >>>>>> profile.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Thoughts? Thanks.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>
>

Reply via email to