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

Switch to Threaded View
HBase >> mail # dev >> 0.94 Backports.


Copy link to this message
-
Re: 0.94 Backports.
No that's not the point either, but never mind, either I'm not being clear,
or it's only me.
On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 7:45 PM, Jonathan Hsieh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Sorry if I misinterpreted.  If it was commit speed is the concern I
> generally agree -- but this patch had a +1 from one of the owners
> (jimmy) so committing it wasn't unreasonable.  I think the bigger
> point is that we need to be more vigilant about compatibility,
> especially with late point releases.
>
> Jon.
>
> On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 7:36 PM, Andrew Purtell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> > I didn't say the revert is not reasonable.
> >
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 7:32 PM, Jonathan Hsieh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> >
> >> Andrew,
> >>
> >> I agree if a new patch under discussion and a commit was made -- bad
> >> form to commit.
> >>
> >> However, a revert within 24 hours seems reasonable, especially if done
> >> by the original committer.   A revert is done to undo harm (failed
> >> build, massive test failures, or serious bug found with nontrivial
> >> effort to repair).
> >>
> >> Personally, I'd rather have a bad commit, a revert and then a single
> >> clean commit (even if this last one came a few days later) instead of
> >> a bad commit, and then a series of addendums that come a few days
> >> later.
> >>
> >> Jon.
> >>
> >> On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 7:20 PM, Andrew Purtell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >> wrote:
> >> > I'm also concerned that the revert happened here while discussion was
> >> > ongoing. Given the latest comments on the issue, this could have been
> >> > handled by a new issue that replaces the offending code with
> reflection.
> >> I
> >> > don't care about the revert per se but would ask we avoid making
> changes
> >> > out from under a discussion until the matter is resolved with
> consensus.
> >> We
> >> > will have cleaner revision history and less churn overall as a
> result. I
> >> > know many of us have to-do lists of HBase JIRAs to retire, but there
> is
> >> no
> >> > need to be hasty. Because we are all busy, unnecessary commit speed
> makes
> >> > it more likely mistakes like this will slip by review in the first
> place
> >> > too.
> >> >
> >> > For your consideration.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 5:40 PM, Ted <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> No.
> >> >> The release was cut before the revert.
> >> >>
> >> >> On Feb 11, 2013, at 5:35 PM, Enis Söztutar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> > I was going to +1 the release, with the following checks I did:
> >> >> > - Checked md5 sums
> >> >> > - Checked gpg signature (gpg --verify )
> >> >> > - Checked included documentation book.html, etc.
> >> >> > - Running unit tests (passed on unsecure, secure)
> >> >> > - Started in local mode, run LoadTestTool
> >> >> > - integration tests (not working fully properly, but expected since
> >> >> > HBASE-7521 is not in yet)
> >> >> >
> >> >> > I guess this means that the release candidate has sunk, right?
> >> >> > Enis
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> > On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 4:59 PM, Stack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> Good catch Jon.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> We need to be vigilant here all.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Incompatibilities cost users and those following behind us as they
> >> burn
> >> >> >> cycles doing gymnastics trying to get over the incompatibility --
> if
> >> it
> >> >> is
> >> >> >> possible to get over the incompatibility at all.  They make us
> look
> >> bad.
> >> >> >> Worse, usually the incompatibility is found months later after we
> >> have
> >> >> all
> >> >> >> moved on and have long forgot what it was we committed (and even
> >> why) so
> >> >> >> all the more reason to be on the look out at commit time.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> St.Ack
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 4:48 PM, Jonathan Hsieh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> >> >> wrote:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>> Apache Hat: What a particular vendor chooses to puts in its
> releases
> >> >
Best regards,

   - Andy

Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet Hein
(via Tom White)