hbase-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Lars Hofhansl <lhofha...@yahoo.com>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] More new feature backports to 0.94.
Date Sat, 02 Mar 2013 02:45:29 GMT
Yes. That's the idea.

#1 does not mean that we "milli-vanilli" back port random things into 0.94. We'll weigh the
pros and the risks and decide based on that.

My personal preference is indeed option #1, but as I said I'd volunteer to make #2 happen.

-- Lars 

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
View raw message