hbase-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Elliott Clark <ecl...@apache.org>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] More new feature backports to 0.94.
Date Fri, 01 Mar 2013 22:43:23 GMT
I'm worried about users who are starting to use 0.94.x.  If they have a bug
in that version, and it's fixed or they submit a patch to fix it.  Then
they should have a version to upgrade to that includes that bug fix and
doesn't include other new features.   I don't think that many people will
want to upgrade their production database to new feature and code when
trying to fix a bug.

Something like http://www.postgresql.org/support/versioning/ seems very
similar to what I would envision.  Only major versions contain new
features.  We're not at a place that the community sees a 1.0.0 as
realistic so we don't have the first number to play with.  I don't think
that changes the fact that the last number should in my opinion be reserved
for patch releases.

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

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