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

Switch to Threaded View
HBase >> mail # dev >> [DISCUSS] More new feature backports to 0.94.


Copy link to this message
-
Re: [DISCUSS] More new feature backports to 0.94.
New feature is a red herring imho: To me the only question is the
regression risk.. And a feature can have a much lower regression risk than
a bug fix. I guess we've all seen a fix for a non critical bug putting down
a production system. Being able to backport features is a competitive
advantage that leverages on a good architecture and a good test suite.
Maintaining a branch adds a cost for everybody: if you have a bug to fix in
94.6.1, you need to fix it in 0.94.7 as well. So we should do it only if we
really have to, and plan it accordingly (i.e. we should not have to create
a 0.94.7.1 a week after the creation of the 0.94.6.1).

In the future, the test suite should also help us to estimate and minimize
the risk. We're not there yet, but having a good test coverage is key for
version 1 imho.

So that makes me +1 for backport, and  0 for branching (+1 if there is a
good reason and a plan, but here it's a theoretical discussion, so,... ;-) )

Nicolas
On Sat, Mar 2, 2013 at 4:44 AM, lars hofhansl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> I did mean "stablizing". What I was trying to point is that stuff we
> backport might stabilize HBase.
>
>
>
> ________________________________
>  From: Ted Yu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; lars hofhansl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Friday, March 1, 2013 7:30 PM
> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] More new feature backports to 0.94.
>
> bq. That is only if we do not backport stabilizing "features".
> Did you mean destabilizing above :-)
>
> My preference is option #1. With option #2, the community would be dealing
> with one more branch which would increase the amount of work validating
> each release candidate.
>
> To me, the difference between option #2 and the upcoming release candidates
> of 0.95 would blur.
>
> Cheers
>
> On Fri, Mar 1, 2013 at 7:24 PM, lars hofhansl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > That is only if we do not backport stabilizing "features". There is an
> > "opportunity cost" to be paid if we take a too rigorous approach too.
> >
> > Take
> >  for example table-locks (which prompted this discussion). With that in
> > place we can do safe online schema changes (that won't fail and leave
> > the table in an undefined state when a concurrent split happens), it
> > also allows for online merge.
> >
> > Now, is that a destabilizing
> > "feature", or will it make HBase more stable and hence is an
> > "improvement"? Depends on viewpoint, doesn't it?
> > -- Lars
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> >  From: Jean-Marc Spaggiari <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Sent: Friday, March 1, 2013 7:12 PM
> > Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] More new feature backports to 0.94.
> >
> > @Lars: No, not any concern about anything already backported. Just a
> > preference to #2 because it seems to make things more stable and
> > easier to manage. New feature = new release. Given new sub-releases
> > are for fixes and improvements, but not new features. Also, if we
> > backport a feature in one or many previous releases, we will have to
> > backport also all the fixes each time there will be an issue. So we
> > will have more maintenant work on previous releases.
> >
> > 2013/3/1 Enis Söztutar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > > I think the current way of risk vs rewards analysis is working well. We
> > > will just continue doing that on a case by case basis, discussing the
> > > implications on individual issues.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Fri, Mar 1, 2013 at 6:46 PM, Lars Hofhansl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > >> BTW are you concerned about any specific back port we did in the past?
> > So
> > >> far we have not seen any destabilization in any of the 0.94 releases.
> > >>
> > >> Jean-Marc Spaggiari <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> >Hi Lars, #2, does it mean you will stop back-porting the new features
> > >> >when it will become a "long-term" release? If so, I'm for option
> #2...
> > >> >
> > >> >JM
> > >> >
> > >> >In your option
> > >> >2013/3/1 Enis Söztutar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: