hbase-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Andrew Purtell <apurt...@apache.org>
Subject Re: HBASE-4213
Date Thu, 15 Sep 2011 15:46:01 GMT
> From: Todd Lipcon <todd@cloudera.com>

> I'd also be happy to commit what we have to a new branch, then do
> followup work on that branch until people feel comfortable merging it.

Ted, Subbu, this sounds like a good idea. What do you think?


Best regards,


  - Andy

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


----- Original Message -----
> From: Todd Lipcon <todd@cloudera.com>
> To: Andrew Purtell <apurtell@apache.org>
> Cc: Ted Yu <yuzhihong@gmail.com>; Subbu M Iyer <msiyer@gmail.com>; "dev@hbase.apache.org"
<dev@hbase.apache.org>
> Sent: Thursday, September 15, 2011 8:38 AM
> Subject: Re: HBASE-4213
> 
> On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 8:33 AM, Andrew Purtell <apurtell@apache.org> 
> wrote:
>>  My recommendation is to begin adding test cases that test RS and ZK quorum 
> peer failures happening while the schema update is in progress, and insure that 
> failures are handled and the update process recovers and succeeds. Once there is 
> a set of such tests we can evaluate their coverage and introduce the feature. It 
> would still be risky, but there would be some basis for believing it to be 
> practical.
> 
> +1. I'd also be happy to commit what we have to a new branch, then do
> followup work on that branch until people feel comfortable merging it.
> Branching gives us the plus of having smaller patches to review,
> without the risk introducd by merging half-done things in trunk.
> 
> BTW: I realize I'm on the more conservative side in the community -
> please hold me to the same or higher standards :) I don't trust my own
> code more than anyone else's!
> 
> -Todd
> -- 
> Todd Lipcon
> Software Engineer, Cloudera
>

Mime
View raw message