Some of you have probably been wondering about what these "[89-fb]" patches
that our team submits for review are, so I would like to clarify that a
little bit. We run a custom version of HBase based on 0.89 at Facebook,
codenamed "0.89-fb", but we do our best effort to submit all of our
improvements to the trunk as well. As a result, we frequently put an 89-fb
version of a patch for review first, go through a review loop, and only
then put the trunk patch out for review. We have noticed that in such
situations our trunk patches sometimes receive many more comments than the
earlier 89-fb versions of the same patches, which complicates our
development workflow, because we have to go back and make these additional
changes as a follow-up patch to 89-fb.
It would greatly simplify our workflow if people treated 89-fb patches just
like any other patches, and submitted most of their feedback on our code
contributions (consisting of an 89-fb patch and a trunk patch) as part of
whatever patch is published first. In other words, I would like to ask you
to treat 89-fb patches just the same as trunk patches, because a trunk
patch is likely to follow. That was our hope when we open-sourced our
internal version of HBase and moved our code review workflow to the
externally-visible review system at http://reviews.facebook.net. The only
kind of 89-fb patches that we are not planning to port to trunk are tagged
[master], containing custom changes to the 89-fb master code.
It would be great to hear what you think about the above and how we can
make it easier for you to give us early feedback on our code contributions.