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 20:11:34 GMT
Bright wasn't aware of the discussion so far.
Looks like we have two -1's, two +1's and one -0

On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 12:40 PM, Todd Lipcon <todd@cloudera.com> 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. 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