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
+
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
Copy link to this message
-
Re: [DISCUSS] More new feature backports to 0.94.
bq. I would want to see this feature come in as a big bang -- get it
complete enough in trunk before backporting the pieces to a stable branch.

I agree with Jon on this point.
Porting in one big patch allows us to think through related use cases.
Another benefit is that there wouldn't be glitch in API, in case the first
batch of backports went into 0.94.x and the second batch goes into 0.94.x+1
Running the feature through test suite in trunk continuously gives us time
to discover defects before the backport.

Cheers

On Sat, Mar 2, 2013 at 7:36 AM, Jonathan Hsieh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> In general, I have a preference against backporting  features for the
> reasons that Enis, Elliott, and Jean-Marc consider valid.  To be clear,
> this preference doesn't mean I am -1 to all backports onto the stable
> apache branch.  Let's do it case-by-case; my main ask is to make major
> backports rare and to make it the norm to require significantly more
> evidence of testing than usual.  I will -1 a major backport that lacks this
> evidence.  This will come up again in the future.
>
> With the cases Lars proposed -- I prefer #3 (just say no) but find #1 (be
> very careful) acceptable given higher level of evidence.  #2 (new release
> branch) is onerous -- I'd rather we just get preview-release branches out
> more frequently to not have deal with this.  Arguably, the reason we have
> the preview-release branches serve the purpose of getting releases out more
> frequently and giving a feature time to harden from a few common points.
>  My hope is that these preview release will replace what were the 0.x.0 and
> 0.x.1 releases from  previous versions
>
> So what kind of evidence would I like to see? We can use snapshots case as
> an example.
>
> When backporting snapshots was brought up, I actually preferred that we not
> backport that feature.  There was demand, so we agreed that we'd do it but
> no backport it until it is "rock solid".  Here's evidence to support the
> case that the feature and backport is solid:
> * It's code history is publicly documented and has been available since
> December.
> * It's design documentation has been available for even longer.
> * The feature is mostly additive and doesn't affect vital paths.
> * It was tested against trunk and the later tested against a 0.94 variant
> that is closer to the target apache branch.
> * The version in the trunk branch has been reviewed by 5 committers.
> * Limitations are either documented (please let me know if we should
> improve it more) or non-critical.
> * Testing and hardening anecdotes have been documented in the original and
> backport jira.  There has been some relatively long term testing and fault
> injection testing (roughly 4-6 weeks).
> * It will be backported in a "big bang" -- all pieces get added or none
> will.
>
> This is a level I consider to be stronger than the normal testing expected
> for a patch.  Ideally, something at least this level is what I would expect
> for other major backports.  Do we agree on that?
>
> For the table locks case, there maybe some of this may be a misperception
> in timing from my point of view.  I see a notification about this in jira
> which makes me think it is more imminent.   Looking into it, I see that
> currently the development and application of the zk table lock feature
> isn't complete -- the mechanism is committed but it isn't applied and
> integrated into all the operations (split, assign etc still on the way).
>  I've asked for documentation and Enis has graciously added a great design
> doc that will help reviewers understand it.  I'd love to be able to spend
> time system testing to really beating it up or at least have anecdotes from
> folks about their efforts on the apache verison.  Finally, I would want to
> see this feature come in as a big bang -- get it complete enough in trunk
> before backporting the pieces to a stable branch.
>
> I haven't invested time into the online merge backport decision but my
+
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