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

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


+
Jonathan Hsieh 2013-03-01, 16:31
+
lars hofhansl 2013-03-01, 19:00
+
Elliott Clark 2013-03-01, 22:43
+
Jean-Marc Spaggiari 2013-03-01, 23:12
+
Enis Söztutar 2013-03-02, 00:55
+
Jonathan Hsieh 2013-03-01, 23:11
+
lars hofhansl 2013-03-02, 02:10
+
Enis Söztutar 2013-03-02, 02:17
+
Jean-Marc Spaggiari 2013-03-02, 02:25
+
Ted Yu 2013-03-02, 02:24
+
Andrew Purtell 2013-03-03, 13:50
+
Ted 2013-03-03, 14:12
+
Andrew Purtell 2013-03-03, 14:38
+
Jean-Marc Spaggiari 2013-03-04, 13:41
+
Stack 2013-03-04, 21:27
+
Enis Söztutar 2013-03-04, 22:29
+
Andrew Purtell 2013-03-05, 01:57
+
Dave Wang 2013-03-01, 16:38
+
Lars Hofhansl 2013-03-02, 02:46
+
Enis Söztutar 2013-03-02, 02:54
+
Jean-Marc Spaggiari 2013-03-02, 03:12
+
lars hofhansl 2013-03-02, 03:24
+
Ted Yu 2013-03-02, 03:30
Copy link to this message
-
Re: [DISCUSS] More new feature backports to 0.94.
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]>:
> >> >> Thanks Lars, I think it is a good listing of the options we have.
> >> >>
> >> >> I'll be +1 for #1 and #2, with #1 being a preference.
> >> >>
> >> >> Enis
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> On Fri, Mar 1, 2013 at 6:10 PM, lars hofhansl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >>> So it seems that until we have a stable 0.96 (maybe 0.96.1 or
> 0.96.2)
> >> we
> >> >>> have three options:
> >> >>> 1. Backport new features to 0.94 as we see fit as long as we do not
> >> >>> destabilize 0.94.
> >> >>> 2. Declare a certain point release (0.94.6 looks like a good
> >> candidate) as
> >> >>> a "long term", create an 0.94.6 branch (in addition to the usual
> 0.94.6
> >> >>> tag) and than create 0.94.6.x fix only releases. I would volunteer
> to
> >> >>> maintain a 0.94.6 branch in addition to the 0.94 branch.
> >> >>> 3. Categorically do not backport new features into 0.94 and defer to
> >> 0.95.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> I'd be +1 on option #1 and #2, and -1 on option #3.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> -- Lars
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>> ________________________________
> >> >>>  From: Jonathan Hsieh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >> >>> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; lars hofhansl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
+
Nicolas Liochon 2013-03-02, 11:43
+
Ted 2013-03-02, 11:57
+
Jonathan Hsieh 2013-03-02, 15:36
+
lars hofhansl 2013-03-02, 16:47
+
Ted Yu 2013-03-02, 16:14
+
Jonathan Hsieh 2013-03-02, 16:26
+
lars hofhansl 2013-03-02, 20:46
+
Jonathan Hsieh 2013-03-02, 21:49
+
Stack 2013-03-02, 23:24
+
lars hofhansl 2013-03-02, 03:23
+
Lars Hofhansl 2013-03-02, 02:45