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

Switch to Threaded View
Hadoop, mail # dev - [ANNOUNCE] Intend to build a 0.20.205.1 candidate next Friday 11 Nov.


Copy link to this message
-
Re: [ANNOUNCE] Intend to build a 0.20.205.1 candidate next Friday 11 Nov.
Andrew Purtell 2011-11-11, 23:08
> From: Todd Lipcon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

> Calling this a "critical fix" for HBase is a bit strange as 99.9% of
> the HBase installs out there do not use it. Trend Micro and Facebook
> are the only ones I'm aware of that do.

It would be more accurate to say we are running it in one production installation, but

  - have questions as to the performance benefits we will actually see

  - won't be able to use it in a deployment that requires stronger assurance 

> And the patch as it stands today has a very suspect security model...
Agreed.

In my opinion, this is a useful option to provide, but off by default, and isn't a critical fix. Nothing is broken. Call it "a performance optimization option".

Best regards,
   - Andy

Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet Hein (via Tom White)
----- Original Message -----
> From: Todd Lipcon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Cc:
> Sent: Friday, November 11, 2011 5:29 PM
> Subject: Re: [ANNOUNCE] Intend to build a 0.20.205.1 candidate next Friday 11 Nov.
>
> On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 1:29 AM, Matt Foley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>  Also, I believe in the HDFS-2246 Jira, Todd requested extra time to review,
>>  due to commitments at Hadoop World.  Todd, would Monday be sufficient extra
>>  time, so as not to slow down the anticipated release schedule too much?
>>
>
> Yes, I will probably have time to review it by Monday. But the
> review-time concern is separate from the concern about which version
> this should go into.
>
> Calling this a "critical fix" for HBase is a bit strange as 99.9% of
> the HBase installs out there do not use it. Trend Micro and Facebook
> are the only ones I'm aware of that do. And the patch as it stands
> today has a very suspect security model...
>
> -Todd
>
>
>>
>>  On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 10:31 PM, Eli Collins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>>
>>>  Hey guys,
>>>
>>>  HDFS-2246 is not a fix, it's a non-trivial performance
> optimization.
>>>  The roadmap page is pretty clear..  "Point releases are made to
> fix
>>>  critical bugs. They do not introduce new features or make other
>>>  improvements other than fixing bugs".
>>>
>>>  I'm not opposed to the change, I'm just pointing out that we
> agreed to
>>>  develop trunk first, and we agreed to follow the release policies for
>>>  the sustaining branch. I don't see why we can't honor those
>>>  agreements, ie why not post a patch for trunk first and then backport
>>>  it to 206? Reasonable?
>>>
>>>  Thanks,
>>>  Eli
>>>
>>>  On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 9:58 PM, Suresh Srinivas
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>>  wrote:
>>>  > Eli,
>>>  >
>>>  > As Jitendra indicated in the jira, this was originally supposed to
> be
>>>  part
>>>  > of 0.205. Due to time crunc, we could not get this done in 0.205.
> This
>>>  can
>>>  > be turned off by a flag and only can be enabled by users who want
> to use
>>>  > the functionality. Given that, I feel it is okay to go into
> 0.205.1.
>>>  >
>>>  > I agree it would be good to have a trunk patch for this and make
> it part
>>>  of
>>>  > 0.23.
>>>  >
>>>  > Regards,
>>>  > Suresh
>>>  >
>>>  > On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 4:32 PM, Eli Collins
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>  >
>>>  >> Hey Matt,
>>>  >>
>>>  >> Is HDFS-2246 slated for 0.20.205.1?  Given that it's not a
> bug and is
>>>  >> non-trivial it seems better suited for 206 than a point
> release. Also,
>>>  >> per the sustaining roadmap -
> http://wiki.apache.org/hadoop/Roadmap -
>>>  >> "Only functionality already committed to trunk should be
> submitted to
>>>  >> a sustaining release." and this functionality does not
> yet have a
>>>  >> patch for trunk yet (let alone committed).
>>>  >>
>>>  >> Thanks,
>>>  >> Eli
>>>  >>
>>>  >> On Fri, Nov 4, 2011 at 5:56 PM, Matt Foley
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>  >> > Hi all,
>>>  >> > I propose to make a 0.20.205.1 candidate soon, with the
> following
>>>  sets of
>>>  >> > patches:
>>>