hbase-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Elliott Clark <ecl...@apache.org>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] Backporting Regionserver Groups (HBASE-6721) to 1.x and 0.98
Date Wed, 16 Mar 2016 23:07:48 GMT
I just don't see a why we would back port. We're going to release a 2.0
when things are ready. It will be a major feature release. Region server
groups is a major feature. Backporting to branch-1 seems like an end run
around what sem ver is supposed to mean (not the api guarantees, the actual
meaning).

Backporting major features is a bad habit that the Hadoop community seems
to have. We shouldn't follow their lead.

On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 2:51 PM, Andrew Purtell <apurtell@apache.org> wrote:

> > Are we being more stringent with 0.98 because it is expected to be more
> stable than a 1.x release?
>
> I am not being more stringent with 0.98. A backport to branch-1 can be
> justified IMHO because there appears to be active interest in having it
> there to deploy out into production somewhere. Is this also the case for
> 0.98? ‚ÄčAs you may recall I accepted ZK-less assignment into 0.98 because
> Yahoo indicated they'd run the code, so as a result it would get regular
> use. It was a decision that wouldn't make sense if there wasn't going to be
> active use and upkeep. Otherwise we increase risk and make some users
> nervous (I seem to recall Cloudera did not pick up the ZK less assignment
> change back when they were still on 0.98) without improved utility for
> other users in trade. Just my thinking on the matter.
>
>
> On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 2:24 PM, Francis Liu <toffer@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > > performance tests focused on the impact of the feature on those who
> > don't want it.
> > Andy and Ted, Given that this code does not touch the write path or the
> > read path at all it would seem practical to skip read/write perf tests
> (ie
> > YCSB, PE, etc)?
> > > where the result will go into someone's production.
> > Are we being more stringent with 0.98 because it is expected to be more
> > stable than a 1.x release?
> >
> >
> >     On Wednesday, March 16, 2016 12:11 PM, Ted Yu <yuzhihong@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >
> >  bq.  same things I asked for MOB: Functional, stability, and performance
> > tests focused on the impact of the feature on those who don't want it.
> >
> > +1 on the above.
> >
> > On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 11:14 AM, Andrew Purtell <apurtell@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > I would like to see the same things I asked for MOB: Functional,
> > stability,
> > > and performance tests focused on the impact of the feature on those who
> > > don't want it. Can use the usual suspects: PE, LTT, YCSB, our ITs.
> Given
> > > how 6721 has been implemented I suspect favorable results will be easy
> to
> > > obtain.
> > >
> > > I think we would like to see a backport to branch-1 because we will be
> > > bringing our production up to a 1.x soon.
> > >
> > > Its fair to consider a backport to 0.98 but as RM for that branch I'd
> > like
> > > to see it go into branch-1 first and also have a case where the result
> > will
> > > go into someone's production.
> > >
> > >
> > > On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 10:15 AM, Francis Liu <toffer@ymail.com.invalid
> >
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi,
> > > > HBASE-6721 is now committed to trunk. It'd be great if it can be
> > > > backported to 1.x and 0.98 so that we can use it internally as well
> as
> > > push
> > > > up features and fixes. We have been running an internal version for
> > > around
> > > > 4 years. There's seems to be interest (HW, Bloomberg, Salesforce,
> etc).
> > > > Also given how modular the code is. There's barely any effect in
> > existing
> > > > code paths.
> > > > Seeding the criteria with Andy's suggestions in jira:
> > > > 1. Stability - Unit tests and ?2. functional3. Performance -
> Read/write
> > > > path was not affected. Some small changes related to assignment.
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > Francis
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Best regards,
> > >
> > >    - Andy
> > >
> > > Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet
> Hein
> > > (via Tom White)
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Best regards,
>
>    - Andy
>
> Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet Hein
> (via Tom White)
>

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