hbase-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Todd Lipcon <t...@cloudera.com>
Subject Re: Code review request for hbase-4120 table priority
Date Tue, 13 Dec 2011 01:11:03 GMT
On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 4:30 PM, Andrew Purtell <apurtell@apache.org> wrote:
> I've become aware of several private forks of HDFS and HBase. Too bad. A pooling of dev
resources would have almost surely have been better.

BTW, to this point -- some of the private forks of HDFS and HBase are
due to the opposite problem. For example, FB branched off at 0.89 and
still uses that branch in production because they've seen the trunk
moving too *fast* and accepting too much new stuff. (at least
according to emails a couple months ago - apologies if I misunderstood
that and putting words in people's mouths)

So in summary I think we have to find the balance. IMO our balance has
been too far towards moving fast and not towards stability in the last
year. As we grow up we need to shift back towards stability of the
core.

-Todd
-- 
Todd Lipcon
Software Engineer, Cloudera

Mime
View raw message