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

Switch to Plain View
HBase, mail # dev - 0.94 Backports.


+
Elliott Clark 2013-02-07, 23:15
+
Jimmy Xiang 2013-02-07, 23:22
+
lars hofhansl 2013-02-07, 23:37
+
Andrew Purtell 2013-02-08, 01:19
+
Andrew Purtell 2013-02-08, 01:20
+
Enis Söztutar 2013-02-08, 19:56
+
Jonathan Hsieh 2013-02-12, 00:24
+
lars hofhansl 2013-02-12, 00:38
+
Jonathan Hsieh 2013-02-12, 00:42
+
Ted Yu 2013-02-12, 00:43
+
Ted Yu 2013-02-12, 00:32
+
Jonathan Hsieh 2013-02-12, 00:48
+
Stack 2013-02-12, 00:59
+
Enis Söztutar 2013-02-12, 01:35
+
Ted 2013-02-12, 01:40
+
Andrew Purtell 2013-02-12, 03:20
Copy link to this message
-
Re: 0.94 Backports.
Jonathan Hsieh 2013-02-12, 03:32
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
>> >>> shouldn't affect an Apache release and especially if we are breaking
>> >>> the
>> >>> project's versioning / compatibility rules.
>> >>>
>> >>> Jon.
>> >>>
>> >>> On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 4:32 PM, Ted Yu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >>>> I downloaded hadoop-0.20.2+737 from Cloudera website.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> I found getShortUserName() in UserGroupInformation
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Haven't checked other 0.20.x source code yet.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> FYI
>> >>>>
>> >>>> On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 4:24 PM, Jonathan Hsieh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> >>> wrote:
>> >>>>
>> >>>>> Hey guys, I saw HBASE-7814 [1] -- a backport committed to 0.94 that
>> >>>>> makes HBase 0.94 now require Hadoop 1.0 (instead of the older
>> >>>>> hadoops).  This was supposed to be a new requirement for hbase
>> 0.96.0.
>> >>>>> [2]
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Are we ok with making the next 0.94 upgrade incompatible?   (And if
>> we
>> >>>>> are we need to release note this kind of stuff).
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Jon.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-7814
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> [2]
>> >>
>> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/hbase-dev/201210.mbox/%[EMAIL PROTECTED]%3E

// Jonathan Hsieh (shay)
// Software Engineer, Cloudera
// [EMAIL PROTECTED]
+
Andrew Purtell 2013-02-12, 03:36
+
Jonathan Hsieh 2013-02-12, 03:45
+
Andrew Purtell 2013-02-12, 03:48
+
Ted Yu 2013-02-12, 03:27
+
Andrew Purtell 2013-02-12, 03:32
+
lars hofhansl 2013-02-12, 04:16