Mailing-List: contact dev-help@hbase.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@hbase.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of saint.ack@gmail.com designates
 209.85.216.176 as permitted sender)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
        h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date
         :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type;
        b=X6F3VjUwahNXIyOTU2e3zjF2cqVewP1ELM4PIsE1TCEA/4+eXA0h2yYP2YQpVfFRgS
         eLby82iB7wL4hRA0lpdLy6Id+meEuCkhn1G2xMAooFSBKo1FKnVO8c/XOo6mEplsi7pE
         oKhN6M0G+tPVCLC8968fqsbQZfyfIteDfAQzY=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: saint.ack@gmail.com
In-Reply-To: <BANLkTi=pv0xs2=30sudEKSJQUGGfJOHVeg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <BANLkTint9M=K6xhYt9vU6+Q9t8ugKjgUXg@mail.gmail.com>
	<BANLkTinK27Tmr1Pj98xBGaqSvKC0t=cOOg@mail.gmail.com>
	<BANLkTimm+bMfW6afCv3iXV_5UPM2wELeqg@mail.gmail.com>
	<BANLkTi=+C-fc+Z1yZOtKUPd=aQvDvpnafg@mail.gmail.com>
	<BANLkTi=G0sy9GjS+6RT_6KKAvVuRQXG2Eg@mail.gmail.com>
	<BANLkTi=pv0xs2=30sudEKSJQUGGfJOHVeg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 3 May 2011 21:07:49 -0700
Message-ID: <BANLkTikz=zsUaY75GDq-dOoUWEyATStHHA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Release 0.90.3 soon?
From: Stack <stack@duboce.net>
To: dev@hbase.apache.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

IMO, HBASE-3777 is a critical fix -- it even addresses a regression
introduced in 0.90.0 -- but its too risky putting it out now in a
release from branch, at least just yet.  It was only committed a day
or so ago (Thanks Karthick and Ted for the hard work getting it in).
I think it needs a bit of bake-in.  We should be rolling a 0.92.0RC
pretty soon.  It'll get some testing then.

We can not risk a point release that is less stable than previous
versions; if we err, the cost in terms of support and community trust
is just too high.

Meantime, any chance of a backport of hbase-3777 Ted?

Good stuff,
St.Ack


On Tue, May 3, 2011 at 6:00 PM, Ted Yu <yuzhihong@gmail.com> wrote:
> The possibility of HBASE-3777 creating bigger trouble than without is low,
> in my opinion.
> Maybe we should conduct a poll in user mailing list and count the votes.
>
> On Tue, May 3, 2011 at 5:34 PM, Jean-Daniel Cryans <jdcryans@apache.org>wrote:
>
>> > Actually these two actions are related.
>> > I can imagine the disappointment among hbase users if HBASE-3777 weren't
>> > included in 0.90.3
>>
>> I can also imagine the disappointment if we release a 0.90.3 that
>> contains more bugs than it fixes, it goes both ways. Moreover,
>> HBASE-3777 wasn't targeted and still isn't targeted for 0.90.3, so I
>> don't see how even if someone paid attention to the jira they would
>> expect to see it in 0.90.3
>>
>> I'd like to state that I'm not trying to discredit the work that was
>> done in that Jira, it was a perfect example of open source
>> collaboration, but I'm rather trying to point out that it's a big
>> change and that the bigger the change the better the chances are that
>> there will be bugs lurking in it. You could easily list big patches
>> that were committed to point releases in the past and I would agree
>> with you that this is something we've done, but I can also recall a
>> number of those changes that introduced more bugs and even made some
>> releases unusable (like 0.20.4). Let's try to learn from our errors.
>>
>> Finally, even if it's not in 0.90.3, the fact that a backport be made
>> available means that people can patch it in themselves or that other
>> distros can decide to include it (like in the next CDH3 update). And
>> finally we could do a 0.90.4 with it.
>>
>> J-D
>>
>