Adding user@. I would +1 this motion.
On Fri, Oct 31, 2014 at 12:18 PM, Sean Busbey <bus...@cloudera.com> wrote: > +1, presuming we wouldn't change our position on hadoop 1.0 for 0.94. > > For the curious, here is the full support matrix Andrew is referencing: > http://hbase.apache.org/book.html#d0e1440 > > On Fri, Oct 31, 2014 at 1:13 PM, Andrew Purtell <apurt...@apache.org> > wrote: > > > No, we'll still need a -hadoop1 and -hadoop2 munged build of 0.98. I'm > only > > suggesting removing support for version 1.0. Other version 1.x would > remain > > active in the compatibility list. > > > > On Fri, Oct 31, 2014 at 11:01 AM, Konstantin Boudnik <c...@apache.org> > > wrote: > > > > > Absolutely makes sense! it will make a lot of things easier, really. > The > > > infamous need for classifiers will finally go away! > > > > > > On Fri, Oct 31, 2014 at 10:56AM, Andrew Purtell wrote: > > > > Hadoop 1.0 is an ancient, and I believe dead, version that certainly > > > nobody > > > > should use today. We have a chronic problem on the 0.98 branch with > > > changes > > > > tested on only Hadoop 2 later are found to break builds against > Hadoop > > 1, > > > > since only 0.94 and 0.98 still support Hadoop 1.x. See > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-12397 as an example. > This > > > issue > > > > also illustrates that dropping support for 1.0 while retaining > support > > > for > > > > 1.1 and later versions of Hadoop 1.x can reduce cross-version > > > compatibility > > > > complexity for at least the API involved in that issue, and certainly > > > > others. This in my opinion is a good thing. > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > Best regards, > > > > > > > > - Andy > > > > > > > > Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet > > Hein > > > > (via Tom White) > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Best regards, > > > > - Andy > > > > Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet Hein > > (via Tom White) > > > > > > -- > Sean >
