hbase-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Andrew Purtell <apurt...@apache.org>
Subject Re: 0.94 Backports.
Date Tue, 12 Feb 2013 03:48:02 GMT
No that's not the point either, but never mind, either I'm not being clear,
or it's only me.


On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 7:45 PM, Jonathan Hsieh <jon@cloudera.com> wrote:

> Sorry if I misinterpreted.  If it was commit speed is the concern I
> generally agree -- but this patch had a +1 from one of the owners
> (jimmy) so committing it wasn't unreasonable.  I think the bigger
> point is that we need to be more vigilant about compatibility,
> especially with late point releases.
>
> Jon.
>
> On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 7:36 PM, Andrew Purtell <apurtell@apache.org>
> wrote:
> > I didn't say the revert is not reasonable.
> >
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 7:32 PM, Jonathan Hsieh <jon@cloudera.com>
> wrote:
> >
> >> Andrew,
> >>
> >> I agree if a new patch under discussion and a commit was made -- bad
> >> form to commit.
> >>
> >> However, a revert within 24 hours seems reasonable, especially if done
> >> by the original committer.   A revert is done to undo harm (failed
> >> build, massive test failures, or serious bug found with nontrivial
> >> effort to repair).
> >>
> >> Personally, I'd rather have a bad commit, a revert and then a single
> >> clean commit (even if this last one came a few days later) instead of
> >> a bad commit, and then a series of addendums that come a few days
> >> later.
> >>
> >> Jon.
> >>
> >> On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 7:20 PM, Andrew Purtell <apurtell@apache.org>
> >> wrote:
> >> > I'm also concerned that the revert happened here while discussion was
> >> > ongoing. Given the latest comments on the issue, this could have been
> >> > handled by a new issue that replaces the offending code with
> reflection.
> >> I
> >> > don't care about the revert per se but would ask we avoid making
> changes
> >> > out from under a discussion until the matter is resolved with
> consensus.
> >> We
> >> > will have cleaner revision history and less churn overall as a
> result. I
> >> > know many of us have to-do lists of HBase JIRAs to retire, but there
> is
> >> no
> >> > need to be hasty. Because we are all busy, unnecessary commit speed
> makes
> >> > it more likely mistakes like this will slip by review in the first
> place
> >> > too.
> >> >
> >> > For your consideration.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 5:40 PM, Ted <yuzhihong@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> No.
> >> >> The release was cut before the revert.
> >> >>
> >> >> On Feb 11, 2013, at 5:35 PM, Enis Söztutar <enis.soz@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> > I was going to +1 the release, with the following checks I did:
> >> >> > - Checked md5 sums
> >> >> > - Checked gpg signature (gpg --verify )
> >> >> > - Checked included documentation book.html, etc.
> >> >> > - Running unit tests (passed on unsecure, secure)
> >> >> > - Started in local mode, run LoadTestTool
> >> >> > - integration tests (not working fully properly, but expected
since
> >> >> > HBASE-7521 is not in yet)
> >> >> >
> >> >> > I guess this means that the release candidate has sunk, right?
> >> >> > Enis
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> > On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 4:59 PM, Stack <stack@duboce.net>
wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> Good catch Jon.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> We need to be vigilant here all.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Incompatibilities cost users and those following behind us
as they
> >> burn
> >> >> >> cycles doing gymnastics trying to get over the incompatibility
--
> if
> >> it
> >> >> is
> >> >> >> possible to get over the incompatibility at all.  They make
us
> look
> >> bad.
> >> >> >> Worse, usually the incompatibility is found months later after
we
> >> have
> >> >> all
> >> >> >> moved on and have long forgot what it was we committed (and
even
> >> why) so
> >> >> >> all the more reason to be on the look out at commit time.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> St.Ack
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 4:48 PM, Jonathan Hsieh <jon@cloudera.com
> >
> >> >> wrote:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>> Apache Hat: What a particular vendor chooses to puts in
its
> releases
> >> >> >>> shouldn't affect an Apache release and especially if we
are
> breaking
> >> >> >>> the
> >> >> >>> project's versioning / compatibility rules.
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>> Jon.
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>> On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 4:32 PM, Ted Yu <yuzhihong@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >> >> >>>> I downloaded hadoop-0.20.2+737 from Cloudera website.
> >> >> >>>>
> >> >> >>>> I found getShortUserName() in UserGroupInformation
> >> >> >>>>
> >> >> >>>> Haven't checked other 0.20.x source code yet.
> >> >> >>>>
> >> >> >>>> FYI
> >> >> >>>>
> >> >> >>>> On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 4:24 PM, Jonathan Hsieh <
> jon@cloudera.com>
> >> >> >>> wrote:
> >> >> >>>>
> >> >> >>>>> Hey guys, I saw HBASE-7814 [1] -- a backport committed
to 0.94
> >> that
> >> >> >>>>> makes HBase 0.94 now require Hadoop 1.0 (instead
of the older
> >> >> >>>>> hadoops).  This was supposed to be a new requirement
for hbase
> >> >> 0.96.0.
> >> >> >>>>> [2]
> >> >> >>>>>
> >> >> >>>>> Are we ok with making the next 0.94 upgrade incompatible?
> (And
> >> if
> >> >> we
> >> >> >>>>> are we need to release note this kind of stuff).
> >> >> >>>>>
> >> >> >>>>> Jon.
> >> >> >>>>>
> >> >> >>>>> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-7814
> >> >> >>>>>
> >> >> >>>>> [2]
> >> >> >>
> >> >>
> >>
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/hbase-dev/201210.mbox/%3CCADcMMgHtqx73JztE4schY04iqs9NPZP3u84HM2SM7iCL6r80mQ@mail.gmail.com%3E
> >> >> >>>>>
> >> >> >>>>>
> >> >> >>>>> On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 11:56 AM, Enis Söztutar
<
> >> enis.soz@gmail.com>
> >> >> >>> wrote:
> >> >> >>>>>> The backporting situation for 0.94 is an exception
it seems,
> >> because
> >> >> >>> of
> >> >> >>>>> the
> >> >> >>>>>> fact that 96 is so late. But until 96 comes
out, we can keep
> up
> >> the
> >> >> >>>>> current
> >> >> >>>>>> approach. It has worked mostly for the time
being.
> >> >> >>>>>>
> >> >> >>>>>> Enis
> >> >> >>>>>>
> >> >> >>>>>>
> >> >> >>>>>> On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 5:20 PM, Andrew Purtell
<
> >> apurtell@apache.org
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>>>> wrote:
> >> >> >>>>>>
> >> >> >>>>>>> That said, let's make sure every backport
has meaningful
> >> >> >>> justification
> >> >> >>>>>>> (determined by consensus).
> >> >> >>>>>>>
> >> >> >>>>>>>
> >> >> >>>>>>> On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 5:19 PM, Andrew
Purtell <
> >> >> >> apurtell@apache.org>
> >> >> >>>>>>> wrote:
> >> >> >>>>>>>
> >> >> >>>>>>>> -1 until we have an actual stable
0.96 release.
> >> >> >>>>>>>>
> >> >> >>>>>>>>
> >> >> >>>>>>>> On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 3:15 PM, Elliott
Clark <
> >> eclark@apache.org
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>>>> wrote:
> >> >> >>>>>>>>
> >> >> >>>>>>>>> Lately there have been a lot of
issues being committed to
> >> trunk
> >> >> >>> and
> >> >> >>>>>>>>> also back-ported to 0.94 (I've
done it myself too).  Since
> >> we're
> >> >> >>> so
> >> >> >>>>> far
> >> >> >>>>>>>>> into 0.94's release cycle should
we think about not
> allowing
> >> >> >> minor
> >> >> >>>>>>>>> features
> >> >> >>>>>>>>> and code clean ups to be back-ported
?
> >> >> >>>>>>>
> >> >> >>>>>>> --
> >> >> >>>>>>> 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
> >> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > --
> >> > 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
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > 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
>



-- 
Best regards,

   - Andy

Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet Hein
(via Tom White)

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