Home | About | Sematext search-lucene.com search-hadoop.com
NEW: Monitor These Apps!
elasticsearch, apache solr, apache hbase, hadoop, redis, casssandra, amazon cloudwatch, mysql, memcached, apache kafka, apache zookeeper, apache storm, ubuntu, centOS, red hat, debian, puppet labs, java, senseiDB
 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
Copy link to this message
-
Re: [DISCUSS] More new feature backports to 0.94.
+1 on option #1.
+0 on option #2.

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).
> > * Backporting orthogonal features (snapshots) seems less risky than core
> > changing features
+
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
NEW: Monitor These Apps!
elasticsearch, apache solr, apache hbase, hadoop, redis, casssandra, amazon cloudwatch, mysql, memcached, apache kafka, apache zookeeper, apache storm, ubuntu, centOS, red hat, debian, puppet labs, java, senseiDB