accumulo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Josh Elser <josh.el...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] Thrift 0.9.1 in Accumulo 1.6.1
Date Sun, 22 Jun 2014 21:41:22 GMT
Since there was a discussion thread on this, I wanted to bring this up 
on the list instead of just leaving a comment on the issue.

I just bisect'ed a failing MetaSplitIT[1] and found that the changes 
introduced by bumping to 0.9.1 were what supposedly introduced them. The 
thing that worries me is that putting this in 1.6.1 came with a "it's 
compatible" guarantee, when, to be perfectly honest, it's obviously not 
at the level of compatibility that we want it to be for a bug-fix 
release (it broke a test).

Now, I haven't traced it back far enough to see what has exactly changed 
with the exceptions (causing us to poll indefinitely instead of fail 
back to the client), but that makes me worry that assumptions we have in 
the implementation of our API, WRT exception handling, are suddenly invalid.

I'll try to poke around at this some more to figure it out exactly.

[1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ACCUMULO-2935

On 5/23/14, 3:09 PM, Christopher wrote:
> Given this conversation, and because I can't really think of a good
> reason not to, I'm going to proceed with applying this to 1.6.1, after
> addressing the issues in RB. That satisfies my desire to make a 1.7.0
> minor release down the road, and satisfies busbey's concerns about
> mixing versioning semantics in 1.x.x (by avoiding 1.x.0 minor
> releases)
>
> --
> Christopher L Tubbs II
> http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii
>
>
> On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 4:36 PM, Christopher <ctubbsii@apache.org> wrote:
>> Yes. They are 100% forward/backwards compatible on the wire.
>>
>> However, it is my understanding that there were some minor additions
>> (new API) to 0.9.1 which won't work in 0.9.0... but that won't affect
>> us since we are not using those features (and wouldn't be adding
>> anything that leverages those features in any bugfixes on 1.6.x), and
>> because we provide the jar.
>>
>> --
>> Christopher L Tubbs II
>> http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii
>>
>>
>> On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 2:26 PM, Sean Busbey <busbey@cloudera.com> wrote:
>>> Do we know if thirft 0.9.0 and 0.9.1 are forward compatible?
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 12:59 PM, Christopher <ctubbsii@apache.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Correction: the current patch does *NOT* bump the wire version... I
>>>> thought I did that, but I did not.
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Christopher L Tubbs II
>>>> http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 12:28 PM, Christopher <ctubbsii@apache.org>
wrote:
>>>>> Devs,
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm considering whether or not it'd be appropriate to push in
>>>>> ACCUMULO-1691 into the 1.6.1-SNAPSHOT branch.
>>>>> This would effectively bump our dependency on libthrift to 0.9.1.
>>>>> However, thrift 0.9.1 and 0.9.0 are 100% wire-compatible (I've been
>>>>> assured by jfarrell and codesf in the #thrift IRC channel).
>>>>>
>>>>> Given that this we provide this dependency, and the bump would fix
>>>>> some thrift bugs, and that Thrift's own API is backwards-compatible in
>>>>> this version, I don't think this would impact our community except in
>>>>> the positive.
>>>>>
>>>>> (Note: currently, my patch for ACCUMULO-1691 bumps up the wire
>>>>> version, but I plan on changing that so it doesn't, now that I've been
>>>>> assured it is compatible... I've also done some manual tests to verify
>>>>> this, and haven't seen any issues across our tests, even without
>>>>> re-generating the thrift classes in ACCUMULO-2773; If I roll
>>>>> ACCUMULO-1691 in, I'd also include ACCUMULO-2773.)
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Christopher L Tubbs II
>>>>> http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Sean

Mime
View raw message