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.
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
> >> >>> 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

Best regards,

   - Andy

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