hbase-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Sangjin Lee <sjl...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] Additional maintenance releases for Hadoop 2.y versions
Date Wed, 15 Jul 2015 21:17:17 GMT
I think the bar for making the maintenance releases should be set
reasonably high, and the main reason is the concern for
stability/regression. Unfortunately there have been cases where a seemingly
innocuous bug fix introduced regressions, small or large. And that defeats
the purpose of a maintenance release.

On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 2:11 PM, Karthik Kambatla <kasha@cloudera.com>
wrote:

> Every new patch potentially brings in new bugs. So, if we want to limit the
> kinds of potential bugs introduced in point releases, we might want to
> limit what gets in.
>
> Would be nice to make sure a point release is more stable than a previous
> point release in that line.
>
> On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 2:07 PM, Sean Busbey <busbey@cloudera.com> wrote:
>
> > Why not just include all backwards compatible bug fixes?
> >
> > Alternatively, why not appoint a Release Manager for the minor release
> line
> > and then allow them to arbitrate when there's disagreement about
> inclusion?
> > This has worked well in the HBase community.
> >
> > On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 3:49 PM, Karthik Kambatla <kasha@cloudera.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > As I proposed in the other thread, how about we adopting the following
> > > model:
> > >
> > > x.y.1 releases have all Blocker, Critical, Major bug fixes applied to
> the
> > > next minor release.
> > > x.y.2 releases have all Blocker, Critical bug fixes applied to the next
> > > minor release.
> > > x.y.3 releases have all Blocker bug fixes applied to next minor
> release.
> > >
> > > Here I am assuming there are no security-fix-only or other urgent
> > releases.
> > >
> > > We could apply this approach for 2.7.x onwards, and do an adhoc 2.6
> > > release.
> > >
> > > On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 12:59 PM, Vinod Kumar Vavilapalli <
> > > vinodkv@hortonworks.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Yeah, I started a thread while back on this one (
> > > > http://markmail.org/message/sbykjn5xgnksh6wg) and had many offline
> > > > discussions re 2.6.1.
> > > >
> > > > The biggest problem I found offline was about what bug-fixes are
> > > > acceptable and what aren’t for everyone wishing to consume 2.6.1.
> Given
> > > the
> > > > number of bug-fixes that went into 2.7.x and into branch-2.8,
> figuring
> > > out
> > > > a set of patches that is acceptable for everyone is a huge challenge
> > > which
> > > > kind of stalled my attempts.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks
> > > > +Vinod
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > On Jul 15, 2015, at 8:57 AM, Sangjin Lee <sjlee0@gmail.com>
wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Strong +1 for having a 2.6.1 release. I understand Vinod has been
> > > trying
> > > > to
> > > > > get that effort going but it's been stalled a little bit. It would
> be
> > > > good
> > > > > to rekindle that effort.
> > > > >
> > > > > Companies with big hadoop 2.x deployments (including mine) have
> > always
> > > > > tried to stabilize a 2.x release by testing/collecting/researching
> > > > critical
> > > > > issues on the release. Each would come up with its own set of fixes
> > to
> > > > > backport. We would also communicate it via offline channels. During
> > the
> > > > > hadoop summit, we thought it would be great if we all came together
> > and
> > > > > create a public stability/bugfix release on top of 2.x (2.6.1 for
> 2.6
> > > for
> > > > > example) with all the critical issues fixed.
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > Sangjin
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Tue, Jul 14, 2015 at 10:42 PM, Tsuyoshi Ozawa <ozawa@apache.org
> >
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >> Thank you for the notification. Trying to back port bug fixes.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> - Tsuyoshi
> > > > >>
> > > > >> On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 3:45 AM, Sean Busbey <busbey@cloudera.com
> >
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >>> Hi Hadoopers!
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> Over in HBase we've been discussing the impact of our
> dependencies
> > on
> > > > our
> > > > >>> downstream users. As our most fundamental dependency, Hadoop
> plays
> > a
> > > > big
> > > > >>> role in the operational cost of running an HBase instance.
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> Currently the HBase 1.y release line supports Hadoop 2.4,
2.5,
> and
> > > > >> 2.6[1].
> > > > >>> We don't drop Hadoop minor release lines in minor releases
so we
> > are
> > > > >>> unlikely remove anything from this set until HBase 2.0, probably
> at
> > > the
> > > > >> end
> > > > >>> of 2015 / start of 2016 (and currently we plan to continue
> > supporting
> > > > at
> > > > >>> least 2.4 for HBase 2.0 [2]). Lately we've been discussing
> updating
> > > our
> > > > >>> shipped binaries to Hadoop 2.6, following some stability
testing
> by
> > > > part
> > > > >> of
> > > > >>> our community[3]. Unfortunately, 2.6.0 in particular has
a couple
> > of
> > > > bugs
> > > > >>> that could destroy HBase clusters should users decide to
turn on
> > HDFS
> > > > >>> encryption[4]. Our installation instructions tell folks to
> replace
> > > > these
> > > > >>> jars with the version of Hadoop they are actually running,
but
> not
> > > all
> > > > >>> users follow those instructions so we want to minimize the
pain
> for
> > > > them.
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> Regular maintenance releases are key to keeping operational
> burdens
> > > low
> > > > >> for
> > > > >>> our downstream users; we don't want them to be forced to
choose
> > > between
> > > > >>> living with broken systems and stomaching the risk of upgrades
> > across
> > > > >>> minor/major version numbers. Looking back over the three
> > > aforementioned
> > > > >>> Hadoop versions, 2.6 hasn't had a patch release since 2.6.0
came
> > out
> > > in
> > > > >> Nov
> > > > >>> 2014, when 2.5 had its last patch release as well. Hadoop
2.4
> looks
> > > to
> > > > >> be a
> > > > >>> year without a release[5]. On our discussion of shipping
Hadoop
> 2.6
> > > > >>> binaries, one of your PMC members mentioned that with continued
> > work
> > > on
> > > > >> the
> > > > >>> 2.7 line y'all weren't planning any additional releases of
the
> > > earlier
> > > > >>> minor versions[6].
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> The HBase community requests that Hadoop pick up making
> > bug-fix-only
> > > > >> patch
> > > > >>> releases again on a regular schedule[7]. Preferably on the
2.6
> line
> > > and
> > > > >>> preferably monthly. We realize that given the time gap since
> 2.6.0
> > it
> > > > >> will
> > > > >>> likely take a big to get 2.6.1 together, but after that it
should
> > > take
> > > > >> much
> > > > >>> less effort to continue.
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> [1]: http://hbase.apache.org/book.html#hadoop
> > > > >>> [2]: http://s.apache.org/ReP
> > > > >>> [3]: HBASE-13339
> > > > >>> [4]: HADOOP-11674 and HADOOP-11710
> > > > >>> [5]: http://hadoop.apache.org/releases.html
> > > > >>> [6]: http://s.apache.org/MTY
> > > > >>> [7]: http://s.apache.org/ViP
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> --
> > > > >>> Sean
> > > > >>
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Karthik Kambatla
> > > Software Engineer, Cloudera Inc.
> > > --------------------------------------------
> > > http://five.sentenc.es
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Sean
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Karthik Kambatla
> Software Engineer, Cloudera Inc.
> --------------------------------------------
> http://five.sentenc.es
>

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