hbase-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jonathan Hsieh <...@cloudera.com>
Subject Re: Upcoming merge of snapshots branch into trunk. (HBASE-6055 and HABSE-7290)
Date Fri, 11 Jan 2013 04:09:01 GMT
Here's the backport jira:

https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-7360

On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 8:05 PM, Jonathan Hsieh <jon@cloudera.com> wrote:
> Lars H is the release manager for 0.94 and it is his call for what he
> will allow or disallow into it.  If Lars is cool with enis's 'a'
> option, I'm fine with it.
>
> I do feel that having to maintain code across 2-4 versions (trunk,
> 0.96, 0.95, 0.94) is more significantly more painful than dealing with
> 1.   I am strongly in favor on not consider backporting this to 0.94
> until we have it solid and voted into trunk.
>
> wrt to enis's 'b' option using the 0.95 -- I think the plan for that
> name is a 0.96 preview.
>
> Here's what I'll do.  I'll re-open the issue and move it out from
> under the HBASE-6055 umbrella.  Let's continue discussion on this
> topic there.  There are a few isolated risks that could be introduced
> and Matteo and I have mentioned some of them there.
>
> We still have should discuss the options for merges.  The original
> plan was to merge the offline branch (hbase-6055) into trunk first and
> then later the online (hbase-7290) to trunk.  In our testing, most of
> the problems we are encountering now have to do with restore and clone
> behavior (the simple online snapshot has been surprisingly-to-me
> robust).  As this becomes more robust, I'm leaning more and more
> towards doing one offline+online merge of the hbase-7290 branch to
> trunk.   My question is after we merge to trunk, the plan would be to
> merge offline+online to 0.94 right?
>
> Jon.
>
> On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 3:20 PM, Enis Söztutar <enis.soz@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>> It turns out that both Cloudera and Hortonworks have plans to backport
>> this to 0.94 in their respective distributions (I don't think that is a
>> secret, apologies if it was).
>> It seems true :). From my HWX hat, I can say that we are interested in
>> backporting snapshots into 0.94, and my apache hat says that if (at least)
>> two companies are interested in this, we should do it in an official apache
>> branch. Now, having said that, ideally we should not be putting new stuff
>> into 0.94, which is a stable branch. On Hadoop, since they are past 1.0,
>> they kind of solved this by adding new features in 1.1, 1.2, etc.
>>
>> I propose either:
>>  a) doing an exception for 0.94, and doing the backport there. We can do
>> off by default.
>>  b) we can do a 0.95 which would basically be 0.94+snapshots.
>>
>> a) has the advantage of being the easier to maintain one, but main drawback
>> would be to introduce possible destabilization and a major feature in the
>> middle of stable releases
>> b) has the advantage of being cleaner, but then we have to maintain 0.94,
>> 0.95 and 0.96.
>>
>> Enis
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 12:53 PM, Andrew Purtell <apurtell@apache.org>wrote:
>>
>>> Just throwing it out there... If you're still including patch sets in
>>> nightlies then one of us could port in the snapshots backport from CDH to
>>> ASF.
>>>
>>> On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 12:49 PM, Jonathan Hsieh <jon@cloudera.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> > As I mentioned on the jira, I can go either way +/-0 -- currently
>>> > there is only rpc-related patches that are different between trunk and
>>> > 0.94.  This does however mean more overhead from the folks committing
>>> > code and testing related to this feature (me, matteo, jesse, ted?),
>>> > which had me leaning more -0
>>> >
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Best regards,
>>>
>>>    - Andy
>>>
>>> Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet Hein
>>> (via Tom White)
>>>
>
>
>
> --
> // Jonathan Hsieh (shay)
> // Software Engineer, Cloudera
> // jon@cloudera.com



-- 
// Jonathan Hsieh (shay)
// Software Engineer, Cloudera
// jon@cloudera.com

Mime
View raw message