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
+
Andrew Purtell 2013-02-12, 03:20
+
Jonathan Hsieh 2013-02-12, 03:32
+
Andrew Purtell 2013-02-12, 03:36
Copy link to this message
-
Re: 0.94 Backports.
Sorry if I misinterpreted.  If it was commit speed is the concern I
generally agree -- but this patch had a +1 from one of the owners
(jimmy) so committing it wasn't unreasonable.  I think the bigger
point is that we need to be more vigilant about compatibility,
especially with late point releases.

Jon.

On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 7:36 PM, Andrew Purtell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I didn't say the revert is not reasonable.
>
>
>
> On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 7:32 PM, Jonathan Hsieh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Andrew,
>>
>> I agree if a new patch under discussion and a commit was made -- bad
>> form to commit.
>>
>> However, a revert within 24 hours seems reasonable, especially if done
>> by the original committer.   A revert is done to undo harm (failed
>> build, massive test failures, or serious bug found with nontrivial
>> effort to repair).
>>
>> Personally, I'd rather have a bad commit, a revert and then a single
>> clean commit (even if this last one came a few days later) instead of
>> a bad commit, and then a series of addendums that come a few days
>> later.
>>
>> Jon.
>>
>> On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 7:20 PM, Andrew Purtell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> wrote:
>> > 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

// Jonathan Hsieh (shay)
// Software Engineer, Cloudera
// [EMAIL PROTECTED]
+
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