Ted Yu 2012-09-06, 17:48
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:
> As release manager of 0.92.x, I want to poll your opinion on porting policy
> 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 scanners'
> to 0.92
> Your comment is welcome.
Software Engineer, Cloudera
Ted Yu 2012-09-06, 18:03
Todd Lipcon 2012-09-06, 18:26
Stack 2012-09-06, 19:31
Ted Yu 2012-09-06, 19:32
Todd Lipcon 2012-09-06, 19:39
Stack 2012-09-06, 19:38