hbase-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ted Yu <yuzhih...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Porting policy from 0.96+ to 0.94
Date Mon, 20 Aug 2012 23:38:00 GMT
In my opinion, we should put more emphasis on tackling the blocking issues
of 0.96 so that 0.96 RC0 can be rolled some time this year.

Cheers

On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 4:24 PM, Enis Söztutar <enis@hortonworks.com> wrote:

> If we do branch 0.96 from 0.94, then release current trunk as 0.98, it
> might be confusing, no? Maybe a 0.95, if we wanna go that path?
>
> Andrew and Lars's comments seem reasonable to me.
>
> Enis
>
> On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 4:18 PM, lars hofhansl <lhofhansl@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Hmm... Reading the other responses... It seems there're more different
> > opinions here.
> > Thanks for bringing this up Enis.
> >
> > I can see a 0.96 branched from 0.94 without PB and some of the other 0.96
> > "singularity" features. (Although then the question arises: How would
> that
> > be different from the 0.94.x?)
> >
> >
> > -- Lars
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> >  From: lars hofhansl <lhofhansl@yahoo.com>
> > To: "dev@hbase.apache.org" <dev@hbase.apache.org>; "
> > hbase-dev@hadoop.apache.org" <hbase-dev@hadoop.apache.org>
> > Sent: Monday, August 20, 2012 1:56 PM
> > Subject: Re: Porting policy from 0.96+ to 0.94
> >
> > Since 0.94 will probably be a long lived version with many releases
> > (thinking about 0.94.2 already),we should back port all changes that:
> > 1. Do not break client/server compatibility (in both directions)
> >
> > 2. Do not break server/server compatibility
> > 3. Do not rely on extensive refactoring that happened only in trunk
> > 4. Are not just cosmetic
> > 5. Do not just represent refactoring without any features added or bugs
> > fixed
> >
> >
> > It includes bug fixes, performance improvements, even new features, etc.
> > But nothing that represents risk without an appropriate benefit.
> >
> >
> > #1 and #2 are hard rules, the rest is obviously subject to
> interpretation.
> >
> > In terms of UI changes. We probably want to keep mere face lifts out, but
> > include changes that provide extra information (new metrics, etc).
> > We definitely want any integrations tests back ported, unless the
> > supporting changes to non-test code are extensive.
> >
> >
> > TL;DR: Back port unless there is a good reason not to; and use good
> > judgment. :)  I'll be looking at most changes that go into 0.94.
> >
> >
> > Also, please do not assume that 0.96 is planned as an unstable release.
> > That is not the case at all. It just might take a while to stabilize.
> >
> >
> > This is just off the top of my head, and as usual just my $0.02.
> >
> >
> > -- Lars
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: Enis Söztutar <enis@hortonworks.com>
> > To: hbase-dev@hadoop.apache.org
> > Sent: Monday, August 20, 2012 11:16 AM
> > Subject: Porting policy from 0.96+ to 0.94
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > Last time we were talking Lars (H.) raised the issue that we might need a
> > stable base while 0.96, and its successors are fully baked in for
> > production use. So, it seems that 0.94 branch releases will be a
> deployment
> > target for some time at least on some of the organizations for some time.
> > We have been backporting a lot of stuff already from trunk into 0.94,
> but I
> > want to discuss whether  we should establish an "official" policy of what
> > should be backported or not. We will definitely want bug fixes in,  but
> > what about new UI stuff, or integration tests, etc. If we can agree on
> > general guidelines at least, it will be then easier to decide on a
> > patch-by-patch basis. What do you guys think?
> >
> > Enis
> >
>

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