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
Copy link to this message
-
Re: [DISCUSS] More new feature backports to 0.94.
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]>
> Sent: Friday, March 1, 2013 3:11 PM
> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] More new feature backports to 0.94.
>
> I think we are basically agreeing -- my primary concern is bringing new
> features in vital paths introduces more risk, I'd rather not backport major
> new features unless we achieve a higher level of assurance through system
> and basic fault injection testing.
>
> For the three current examples -- snapshots, zk table locks, online merge
> -- I actually would prefer not including any in apache 0.94.  Of the bunch,
> I feel the table locks are the most risky since it affects vital paths a
> user must use,  where as snapshots and online merge are features that a
> user could choose to use but does not necessarily have to use.  I'll voice
> my concerns, reason for concerns, and justifications on the individual
> jiras.
>
> I do feel that new features being in a dev/preview release like 0.95 aligns
> well and doesn't create situations where different versions have different
> feature sets.  New features should be introduced and hardened in a
> dev/preview version, and the turn into the production ready versions after
> they've been proven out a bit.
>
> Jon.
>
> On Fri, Mar 1, 2013 at 11:00 AM, lars hofhansl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > This is an open source project, as long as there is a volunteer to
> > backport a patch I see no problem with doing this.
> > The only thing we as the community should ensure is that it must be
> > demonstrated that the patch does not destabilize the 0.94 code base; that
> > has to be done on a case by case basis.
> >
> >
> > Also, there is no stable release of HBase other than 0.94 (0.95 is not
> > stable, and we specifically state that it should not be used in
> production).
> >
> > -- Lars
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> >  From: Jonathan Hsieh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Sent: Friday, March 1, 2013 8:31 AM
> > Subject: [DISCUSS] More new feature backports to 0.94.
> >
> > I was thinking more about HBASE-7360 (backport snapshots to 0.94) and
> also
> > saw HBASE-7965 which suggests porting some major-ish features (table
> locks,
> > online merge) in to the apache 0.94 line.   We should chat about what we
> > want to do about new features and bringing them into stable versions
> (0.94
> > today) and in general criteria we use for future versions.
> >
> > This is similar to the snapshots backport discussion and earlier backport
> > discussions.  Here's my understanding of  high level points we basically
> > agree upon.
> > * Backporting new features to the previous major version incurs more cost
> > when developing new features,  pushes back efforts on making the trunk
> > versions and reduces incentive to move to newer versions.
> > * Backporting new features to earlier versions (0.9x.0, 0.9x.1) is
> > reasonable since they are generally less stable.
> > * Backporting new features to later version (0.9x.5, 0.9x.6) is less
> > reasonable --  (ex: a 0.94.6, or 0.94.7 should only include robust
> > features).
+
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
+
lars hofhansl 2013-03-02, 03:44
+
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