hbase-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ted Yu <yuzhih...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: backporting HBASE-3777 to 0.90
Date Wed, 28 Sep 2011 21:30:53 GMT
Thanks Andy for your support.
Appreciate it.

On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 1:39 PM, Andrew Purtell <apurtell@apache.org> wrote:

> > I'd switch from -1 to +1 if we can get +1s from people who have tried
> > it on clusters with several different real existing apps written by
> > several different teams.
>
>
> This makes sense. My +1 was partly an agreement that I'd try it.
>
>
> 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: dev@hbase.apache.org
> > Cc: Andrew Purtell <apurtell@apache.org>
> > Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2011 12:40 PM
> > Subject: Re: backporting HBASE-3777 to 0.90
> >
> > I'd switch from -1 to +1 if we can get +1s from people who have tried
> > it on clusters with several different real existing apps written by
> > several different teams. EG if we can verify that the CIQ workload,
> > the SU workload, and the TM workload all work with this patch with no
> > adverse effects, seems reasonable to commit. But just passing unit
> > tests doesn't seem like enough to me since it changes behavior in a
> > way that is difficult to predict.
> >
> > -Todd
> >
> > On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 4:33 AM, Ted Yu <yuzhihong@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>  One option is to publish the backported patch which passes all unit
> tests
> >>  and 'certified' by people who play trial on it.
> >>
> >>  The switch proposed by Todd is nice but difficult to implement.
> >>
> >>  Cheers
> >>
> >>  On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 12:29 PM, Todd Lipcon <todd@cloudera.com>
> > wrote:
> >>
> >>>  On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 4:27 AM, Ted Yu <yuzhihong@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >>>  >>> We could query user@ before considering commit.
> >>>  > Let's do this.
> >>>  >
> >>>  > Objections ?
> >>>  >
> >>>
> >>>  I don't think most users will know whether this will break them
> > until
> >>>  it's "too late". Hence defaulting to current behavior,
> > and letting
> >>>  people switch it if the current behavior isn't working for them.
> >>>
> >>>  -Todd
> >>>  --
> >>>  Todd Lipcon
> >>>  Software Engineer, Cloudera
> >>>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Todd Lipcon
> > Software Engineer, Cloudera
> >
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message