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
+
Enis Söztutar 2013-03-02, 02:17
+
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
Copy link to this message
-
Re: [DISCUSS] More new feature backports to 0.94.
Lars Hofhansl 2013-03-02, 02:46
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
>when it will become a "long-term" release? If so, I'm for option #2...
>
>JM
>
>In your option
>2013/3/1 Enis Söztutar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> 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
+
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