Thanks for your comment, Todd.
I have observed some flexibility in this regard from, say cdh3u4a:
On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 10:50 AM, Todd Lipcon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I think there's a distinction from porting to the newest release
> (0.94.x, which is not yet really widely deployed, though starting to
> get there) compared to porting to a one-old release (0.92.x). I think
> we should be especially conservative about adding even non-invasive
> features to "stable" branches. The higher the "y" in 0.x.y, the more
> conservative we should be, since it implies that branch has gone
> through quite a bit of stabilization and we should avoid risk.
> On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 10:48 AM, Ted Yu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Hi,
> > As release manager of 0.92.x, I want to poll your opinion on porting
> > from 0.94 to 0.92
> > Earlier there was email thread 'Porting policy from 0.96+ to 0.94'.
> > From that thread, I think there was green light for porting non invasive,
> > small new features if some committer/party shows interest.
> > My interpretation of 'non invasive' is that the feature doesn't change
> > HFile format or IPC protocol. We would always guarantee rolling upgrade
> > from earlier 0.92 release to newer release.
> > Particular JIRA leading to this poll:
> > HBASE-6726 Port HBASE-4465 'Lazy-seek optimization for StoreFile
> > to 0.92
> > Your comment is welcome.
> Todd Lipcon
> Software Engineer, Cloudera