Mailing-List: contact dev-help@hbase.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@hbase.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of jon@cloudera.com designates
 209.85.212.41 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAAha9a10UX_JXO9EtF-15JdOWCrQtqO3VoDhGuKScg9Y2kOZ5A@mail.gmail.com>
References: 
 <CAAha9a2aU5p9K7RxFt=N2heOpt4pz4F2ggGwEeC5qUhRuHjJtA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CADcMMgH6eoGs8YKXtWy=yKYx6S1APrgmtXJp_zkrx7LsYL-i1A@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAha9a0b_K3hN_XPjOLC5ZKtqmTpN06odY6WjUeadhPi7tTuwg@mail.gmail.com>
 <1357843573.19146.YahooMailNeo@web140601.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>
 <CAAha9a31OnLuTQ9on=HinwaG3yPygRR_uQBLwfwDy+BA+nKfyQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CA+RK=_C1sXcEmHDcGLtQkx6DFZ5-TDFo7GUSKvqC_ARt=T0sGg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAMUu0w96s-G+BLaAESXVC9JD9eAg0_TnEouuN0t7V9xj6bopng@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAha9a10UX_JXO9EtF-15JdOWCrQtqO3VoDhGuKScg9Y2kOZ5A@mail.gmail.com>
From: Jonathan Hsieh <jon@cloudera.com>
Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2013 20:09:01 -0800
Message-ID: 
 <CAAha9a32M=oopH_8OXmOV_ofVPi3j5QjSSxo+um7yQBY7YkokQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Upcoming merge of snapshots branch into trunk. (HBASE-6055 and
 HABSE-7290)
To: dev@hbase.apache.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

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 S=F6ztutar <enis.soz@gmail.com> wro=
te:
>> 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 leas=
t)
>> two companies are interested in this, we should do it in an official apa=
che
>> branch. Now, having said that, ideally we should not be putting new stuf=
f
>> 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 drawb=
ack
>> would be to introduce possible destabilization and a major feature in th=
e
>> 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>wr=
ote:
>>
>>> 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> wro=
te:
>>>
>>> > As I mentioned on the jira, I can go either way +/-0 -- currently
>>> > there is only rpc-related patches that are different between trunk an=
d
>>> > 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 Hei=
n
>>> (via Tom White)
>>>
>
>
>
> --
> // Jonathan Hsieh (shay)
> // Software Engineer, Cloudera
> // jon@cloudera.com


--=20
// Jonathan Hsieh (shay)
// Software Engineer, Cloudera
// jon@cloudera.com