Home | About | Sematext search-lucene.com search-hadoop.com
 Search Hadoop and all its subprojects:

Switch to Plain View
HBase, mail # dev - 0.94 Backports.


+
Elliott Clark 2013-02-07, 23:15
+
Jimmy Xiang 2013-02-07, 23:22
+
lars hofhansl 2013-02-07, 23:37
+
Andrew Purtell 2013-02-08, 01:19
+
Andrew Purtell 2013-02-08, 01:20
+
Enis Söztutar 2013-02-08, 19:56
+
Jonathan Hsieh 2013-02-12, 00:24
+
lars hofhansl 2013-02-12, 00:38
+
Jonathan Hsieh 2013-02-12, 00:42
+
Ted Yu 2013-02-12, 00:43
+
Ted Yu 2013-02-12, 00:32
+
Jonathan Hsieh 2013-02-12, 00:48
+
Stack 2013-02-12, 00:59
+
Enis Söztutar 2013-02-12, 01:35
+
Ted 2013-02-12, 01:40
Copy link to this message
-
Re: 0.94 Backports.
Andrew Purtell 2013-02-12, 03:20
I'm also concerned that the revert happened here while discussion was
ongoing. Given the latest comments on the issue, this could have been
handled by a new issue that replaces the offending code with reflection. I
don't care about the revert per se but would ask we avoid making changes
out from under a discussion until the matter is resolved with consensus. We
will have cleaner revision history and less churn overall as a result. I
know many of us have to-do lists of HBase JIRAs to retire, but there is no
need to be hasty. Because we are all busy, unnecessary commit speed makes
it more likely mistakes like this will slip by review in the first place
too.

For your consideration.
On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 5:40 PM, Ted <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> No.
> The release was cut before the revert.
>
> On Feb 11, 2013, at 5:35 PM, Enis Söztutar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > I was going to +1 the release, with the following checks I did:
> > - Checked md5 sums
> > - Checked gpg signature (gpg --verify )
> > - Checked included documentation book.html, etc.
> > - Running unit tests (passed on unsecure, secure)
> > - Started in local mode, run LoadTestTool
> > - integration tests (not working fully properly, but expected since
> > HBASE-7521 is not in yet)
> >
> > I guess this means that the release candidate has sunk, right?
> > Enis
> >
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 4:59 PM, Stack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >> Good catch Jon.
> >>
> >> We need to be vigilant here all.
> >>
> >> Incompatibilities cost users and those following behind us as they burn
> >> cycles doing gymnastics trying to get over the incompatibility -- if it
> is
> >> possible to get over the incompatibility at all.  They make us look bad.
> >> Worse, usually the incompatibility is found months later after we have
> all
> >> moved on and have long forgot what it was we committed (and even why) so
> >> all the more reason to be on the look out at commit time.
> >>
> >> St.Ack
> >>
> >>
> >> On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 4:48 PM, Jonathan Hsieh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Apache Hat: What a particular vendor chooses to puts in its releases
> >>> shouldn't affect an Apache release and especially if we are breaking
> >>> the
> >>> project's versioning / compatibility rules.
> >>>
> >>> Jon.
> >>>
> >>> On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 4:32 PM, Ted Yu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>>> I downloaded hadoop-0.20.2+737 from Cloudera website.
> >>>>
> >>>> I found getShortUserName() in UserGroupInformation
> >>>>
> >>>> Haven't checked other 0.20.x source code yet.
> >>>>
> >>>> FYI
> >>>>
> >>>> On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 4:24 PM, Jonathan Hsieh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> Hey guys, I saw HBASE-7814 [1] -- a backport committed to 0.94 that
> >>>>> makes HBase 0.94 now require Hadoop 1.0 (instead of the older
> >>>>> hadoops).  This was supposed to be a new requirement for hbase
> 0.96.0.
> >>>>> [2]
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Are we ok with making the next 0.94 upgrade incompatible?   (And if
> we
> >>>>> are we need to release note this kind of stuff).
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Jon.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-7814
> >>>>>
> >>>>> [2]
> >>
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/hbase-dev/201210.mbox/%[EMAIL PROTECTED]%3E
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 11:56 AM, Enis Söztutar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>>>> The backporting situation for 0.94 is an exception it seems, because
> >>> of
> >>>>> the
> >>>>>> fact that 96 is so late. But until 96 comes out, we can keep up the
> >>>>> current
> >>>>>> approach. It has worked mostly for the time being.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Enis
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 5:20 PM, Andrew Purtell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >>>
> >>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> That said, let's make sure every backport has meaningful
> >>> justification
> >>>>>>> (determined by consensus).
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 5:19 PM, Andrew Purtell <

Best regards,

   - Andy

Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet Hein
(via Tom White)
+
Jonathan Hsieh 2013-02-12, 03:32
+
Andrew Purtell 2013-02-12, 03:36
+
Jonathan Hsieh 2013-02-12, 03:45
+
Andrew Purtell 2013-02-12, 03:48
+
Ted Yu 2013-02-12, 03:27
+
Andrew Purtell 2013-02-12, 03:32
+
lars hofhansl 2013-02-12, 04:16