hbase-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Stack <st...@duboce.net>
Subject Re: 0.94 Backports.
Date Tue, 12 Feb 2013 00:59:20 GMT
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
>

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