hbase-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Nick Dimiduk <ndimi...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Backporting to active branches
Date Fri, 12 Feb 2016 17:33:04 GMT
I was speaking of the frequency of minor releases on the 1.x line, not 98.

On Friday, February 12, 2016, Andrew Purtell <andrew.purtell@gmail.com>
wrote:

> We don't have frequent enough releases with 0.98?
>
>
> > On Feb 11, 2016, at 10:26 PM, Jonathan Hsieh <jon@cloudera.com
> <javascript:;>> wrote:
> >
> > Users also deserve to get as few new surprises as possible.  Being on the
> > supporting side of this, I've come to prefer preserving minor known
> issues
> > to having new unknown issues caused of small improvements.
> >
> > I prefer the conservative approach with "improvements", and prefer that
> > maint/point release just backport critical fixes, security fixes, testing
> > improvements (test only flakey fixups), recovery tooling (hbck updates),
> > and critical perf regression fixes.
> >
> > If not getting minors out fast enough is the main concern and motivator,
> > I'd argue backporting more doesn't help the problem -- that is energy
> that
> > could be spent helping get more minors out more frequently.   One of the
> > things about having frequent point release like when we had with 0.94 was
> > that we likely could have shipped some of the earlier 1.2.0rcs and fixed
> > the criticals in next point release train.
> >
> > Jon.
> >
> >> On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 9:45 PM, Nick Dimiduk <ndimiduk@apache.org
> <javascript:;>> wrote:
> >>
> >> I appreciate Elliot's voice for conservatism on released branches.
> However
> >> I don't think we're getting minor releases out the door fast enough,
> >> especially when we have nice "improvements" that apply cleanly. Users
> >> deserve to get as many of the improvements as are compatible for patch
> >> releases, according to our guidelines.
> >>
> >>> On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 2:55 PM, Elliott Clark <eclark@apache.org
> <javascript:;>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> That one's on the edge for me. It's trying to work around a bug
> somewhere
> >>> that has caused data loss in prod. So I would lean towards it being a
> bug
> >>> fix.
> >>>
> >>> However pulling from my last few filed jiras I would say these are all
> >>> improvements:
> >>> HBASE-15166
> >>> HBASE-15146
> >>> HBASE-15137
> >>> HBASE-15083
> >>>
> >>> Some of them fixed things that we hit in production but they didn't
> >> change
> >>> correctness or cause the system to be un-usable in the normal case. So
> I
> >>> would classify them as improvements. For me I would want to backport
> only
> >>> for patch releases fixes that fixed severe issues, things that changed
> >>> correctness or caused a system to be un-usable.
> >>>
> >>> On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 1:54 PM, Andrew Purtell <apurtell@apache.org
> <javascript:;>>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Ok, in fairness there could be more debatable (or even not debatable)
> >>>> changes on branch-1 as you say. Also, a difference of perspective.
> >> Would
> >>>> you for example consider HBASE-15211 a bug fix or improvement?
> >>>>
> >>>>> On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 1:25 PM, Elliott Clark <eclark@apache.org
> <javascript:;>>
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 1:13 PM, Andrew Purtell <
> >>>> andrew.purtell@gmail.com <javascript:;>>
> >>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> The majority of changes in branch-1 that I see are bug fixes.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I think that's the point that you and I differ. For me I would
> >> classify
> >>>>> most things on branch-1 as improvements and there are very few bug
> >>> fixes.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> --
> >>>> Best regards,
> >>>>
> >>>>   - Andy
> >>>>
> >>>> Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet
> >> Hein
> >>>> (via Tom White)
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > // Jonathan Hsieh (shay)
> > // HBase Tech Lead, Software Engineer, Cloudera
> > // jon@cloudera.com <javascript:;> // @jmhsieh
>

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