hbase-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Enis Söztutar <enis....@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] More new feature backports to 0.94.
Date Sat, 02 Mar 2013 02:54:20 GMT
I think the current way of risk vs rewards analysis is working well. We
will just continue doing that on a case by case basis, discussing the
implications on individual issues.



On Fri, Mar 1, 2013 at 6:46 PM, Lars Hofhansl <lhofhansl@yahoo.com> wrote:

> BTW are you concerned about any specific back port we did in the past? So
> far we have not seen any destabilization in any of the 0.94 releases.
>
> Jean-Marc Spaggiari <jean-marc@spaggiari.org> wrote:
>
> >Hi Lars, #2, does it mean you will stop back-porting the new features
> >when it will become a "long-term" release? If so, I'm for option #2...
> >
> >JM
> >
> >In your option
> >2013/3/1 Enis Söztutar <enis.soz@gmail.com>:
> >> Thanks Lars, I think it is a good listing of the options we have.
> >>
> >> I'll be +1 for #1 and #2, with #1 being a preference.
> >>
> >> Enis
> >>
> >>
> >> On Fri, Mar 1, 2013 at 6:10 PM, lars hofhansl <larsh@apache.org> wrote:
> >>
> >>> 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
> >>> jiras.
> >>>
> >>> 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.
> >>>
> >>> Jon.
> >>>
> >>> 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
> >>>
>

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