In addition to release notes on configuration items, we should also
include the level of stability for the feature. For example, although
we're feature complete on HBASE-4218, we're currently only using it for
in-memory compression so it can have some simmering time to find weird
bugs. I think I would be hesitant about how much help I give on
HBASE-4218, because right now it would be good to limit usage to people
who can read the diff and understand it to debug. 'compaction.ratio' on
the other hand is a pretty safe config to change and I would actually
encourage the common user to play around with it. Does
'hbase.online.schema.update.enable' even need to be documented? It's only
false for right now while people are beta testing it. Soon, it should be
set to true and people should not have to know that it exists.
Basically, right now, all config options are created equal in
documentation. We need a way to distinguish between configs that we
actively want people to tweak, configs that are 'welcome to the bleeding
edge. Good luck', and configs that are 'we don't know how useful this is.
Just being proactive'.
Also note that, just because a feature is new to 0.94, that doesn't infer
maturity. A small feature matures extremely quickly. A large feature
that was committed right after the 0.92 cut and heavily used may be more
mature than a 0.92 feature that is lightly used.
On 3/26/12 4:59 PM, "Jonathan Hsieh" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Let's add these notes here?
>On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 3:57 PM, Todd Lipcon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Big +1. I think the commit messages that FB uses on their 0.89-fb
>> branch are a great example to follow. It's handy to have the data
>> right there in SVN, and if people are agreeable to it, I'd encourage
>> us to all start to follow a similar convention where possible. Look at
>> the Linux git history for good examples of how another project manages
>> this -- very informative commit messages for the most part.
>> Also big +1 on release notes - any time configs are added/removed, the
>> release notes field should be mandatory. And highly recommended in the
>> other situations that JD mentioned.
>> On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 3:52 PM, Jean-Daniel Cryans
>> > Hi devs,
>> > Our community has really been growing recently and it's getting harder
>> > and harder to keep up with what's going on in the project. I can think
>> > of two things that would really help (me at least).
>> > 1) Explaining your patches
>> > Whether you need to go back to a jira that's been fixed months ago or
>> > you're just trying to grok the progression of another, not having any
>> > description of what's being done in a particular patch attached to a
>> > jira has at least two bad effects: a developer has to either spend
>> > time trying to understand the changes or he simply moves on and misses
>> > the party bus. It's much more efficient if the author describes what
>> > he did.
>> > Bad examples of comments coming along patches:
>> > "Here's a patch"
>> > "v2"
>> > "First pass" / "Second pass" / "Final"
>> > Unless the required work was already pretty explicit like adding
>> > documentation or fixing something small, this is not helping anyone
>> > (including the author).
>> > Ok examples:
>> > "To fix the bug I added X in Y"
>> > "In this patch I refactored Foo"
>> > This might be enough but if the patch is >50kb then you better come up
>> > with something better than that.
>> > Good examples would include:
>> > - A description of how your patch is trying to solve the issue.
>> > - Explanations for certain parts you think are sketchy or tricky. "I
>> > tried to do X but because of Y it was impossible, had to hack this
>> > instead". "This might look like a big shotgun surgery, but 90% of this
>> > patch is just a big refactor because I extracted these methods into a