hbase-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Dave Wang <...@cloudera.com>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] More new feature backports to 0.94.
Date Fri, 01 Mar 2013 16:38:57 GMT
+1 to all of this.  Additionally, please keep in mind that when we backport
something now, we have to backport it to both 0.95 and 0.94.

- Dave

On Fri, Mar 1, 2013 at 8:31 AM, Jonathan Hsieh <jon@cloudera.com> wrote:

> 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