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 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)
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