hbase-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From lars hofhansl <la...@apache.org>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] More new feature backports to 0.94.
Date Sat, 02 Mar 2013 02:10:03 GMT
So it seems that until we have a stable 0.96 (maybe 0.96.1 or 0.96.2) we have three options:
1. Backport new features to 0.94 as we see fit as long as we do not destabilize 0.94.
2. Declare a certain point release (0.94.6 looks like a good candidate) as a "long term",
create an 0.94.6 branch (in addition to the usual 0.94.6 tag) and than create 0.94.6.x fix
only releases. I would volunteer to maintain a 0.94.6 branch in addition to the 0.94 branch.
3. Categorically do not backport new features into 0.94 and defer to 0.95.

I'd be +1 on option #1 and #2, and -1 on option #3.

-- Lars

 From: Jonathan Hsieh <jon@cloudera.com>
To: dev@hbase.apache.org; lars hofhansl <larsh@apache.org> 
Sent: Friday, March 1, 2013 3:11 PM
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] More new feature backports to 0.94.
I think we are basically agreeing -- my primary concern is bringing new
features in vital paths introduces more risk, I'd rather not backport major
new features unless we achieve a higher level of assurance through system
and basic fault injection testing.

For the three current examples -- snapshots, zk table locks, online merge
-- I actually would prefer not including any in apache 0.94.  Of the bunch,
I feel the table locks are the most risky since it affects vital paths a
user must use,  where as snapshots and online merge are features that a
user could choose to use but does not necessarily have to use.  I'll voice
my concerns, reason for concerns, and justifications on the individual

I do feel that new features being in a dev/preview release like 0.95 aligns
well and doesn't create situations where different versions have different
feature sets.  New features should be introduced and hardened in a
dev/preview version, and the turn into the production ready versions after
they've been proven out a bit.


On Fri, Mar 1, 2013 at 11:00 AM, lars hofhansl <larsh@apache.org> wrote:

> This is an open source project, as long as there is a volunteer to
> backport a patch I see no problem with doing this.
> The only thing we as the community should ensure is that it must be
> demonstrated that the patch does not destabilize the 0.94 code base; that
> has to be done on a case by case basis.
> Also, there is no stable release of HBase other than 0.94 (0.95 is not
> stable, and we specifically state that it should not be used in production).
> -- Lars
> ________________________________
>  From: Jonathan Hsieh <jon@cloudera.com>
> To: dev@hbase.apache.org
> Sent: Friday, March 1, 2013 8:31 AM
> Subject: [DISCUSS] More new feature backports to 0.94.
> I was thinking more about HBASE-7360 (backport snapshots to 0.94) and also
> saw HBASE-7965 which suggests porting some major-ish features (table locks,
> online merge) in to the apache 0.94 line.   We should chat about what we
> want to do about new features and bringing them into stable versions (0.94
> today) and in general criteria we use for future versions.
> This is similar to the snapshots backport discussion and earlier backport
> discussions.  Here's my understanding of  high level points we basically
> agree upon.
> * Backporting new features to the previous major version incurs more cost
> when developing new features,  pushes back efforts on making the trunk
> versions and reduces incentive to move to newer versions.
> * Backporting new features to earlier versions (0.9x.0, 0.9x.1) is
> reasonable since they are generally less stable.
> * Backporting new features to later version (0.9x.5, 0.9x.6) is less
> reasonable --  (ex: a 0.94.6, or 0.94.7 should only include robust
> features).
> * Backporting orthogonal features (snapshots) seems less risky than core
> changing features
> * An except: If multiple distributions declare intent to backport, it makes
> sense to backport a feature. (snapshots for example).
> Some new circumstances and discussion topics:
> * We now have a dev branch (0.95) with looser compat requirements that we
> could more readily release with dev/preview versions.  Shouldn't this
> reduce the need to backport features to the apache stable branches?  Would
> releases of these releases "replace" the 0.x.0 or 0.x.1 releases?
> * For major features in later versions we should raise the bar on the
> amount of testing probably be more explicit about what testing is done
> (unit tests not suffcient, system testing stories/resports a requirement).
> Any other suggestions?
> Jon.
> --
> // Jonathan Hsieh (shay)
> // Software Engineer, Cloudera
> // jon@cloudera.com

// Jonathan Hsieh (shay)
// Software Engineer, Cloudera
// jon@cloudera.com
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message