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.
Ted 2013-03-02, 11:57
I agree with Nicolas' assessment.

Cheers

On Mar 2, 2013, at 3:43 AM, Nicolas Liochon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> 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