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 03:32:08 GMT
I'm aware of the comment history and timeline Ted. This is a general
request to consider being a little more deliberate. I don't care about
litigating what may or may not happened on this issue, but I think you can
allow me to register my concern. Thank you.


On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 7:27 PM, Ted Yu <yuzhihong@gmail.com> wrote:

> If you look at the comments in HBASE-7814, Lars' comment was logged at the
> same time as my notice of reversion:
>
>
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-7814?focusedCommentId=13576253&page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel#comment-13576253
>
> FYI
>
> 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)
> >
>



-- 
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