hbase-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Peter Somogyi <psomo...@apache.org>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] Moving IA.Public class LossyCounting to IA.Private in all maintenance branches
Date Sun, 26 May 2019 07:31:33 GMT
> So we need to roll new RCs for both 2.1.5 and 2.2.0?
Yes, both RCs have missing commits and incomplete Release notes.

> The base patch didn't commit to branch-2.2?
The committer missed to push the change to branch-2.2 even though there was
a discussion HBASE-21991 should land there. Fix version also included 2.2.0
but not 2.1.5 where it was actually committed to.

On Sun, May 26, 2019 at 4:56 AM Guanghao Zhang <zghaobac@gmail.com> wrote:

> The base patch didn't commit to branch-2.2? I found HBASE-21991 because it
> was a reopened issue and fix version was 2.2.0. Then I helped to commit the
> addendum to branch-2.2 and rolled 2.2.0RC4......
>
> 张铎(Duo Zhang) <palomino219@gmail.com> 于2019年5月26日周日 上午10:39写道:
>
> > So we need to roll new RCs for both 2.1.5 and 2.2.0?
> >
> > Peter Somogyi <psomogyi@apache.org>于2019年5月26日 周日05:46写道:
> >
> > > Apologies, I misinterpreted git log and JIRA previously. There is no
> need
> > > for a new issue to move the LossyCounting class to IA.Private.
> > >
> > > What is needed:
> > > branch-2.1: commit missing addendum and add 2.1.5 to fixed versions
> > > branch-2.2: commit missing base patch
> > >
> > > On Sat, May 25, 2019 at 10:30 PM Andrew Purtell <
> > andrew.purtell@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > We have decided this is not part of the public API so all that is
> > needed
> > > > is to change the annotation and post new RCs with that change with an
> > > > update to release notes. It doesn’t matter if there was an
> incompatible
> > > > change to the class made or not. A simple audience annotation mistake
> > is
> > > > taking disproportionate attention away from more important efforts.
> > > >
> > > > If an annotation change to one class is the only update in a new RC
> you
> > > > can have confidence in porting your votes from the last RC to the new
> > one
> > > > after confirming sums and signatures. For your consideration.
> > > >
> > > > > On May 25, 2019, at 12:37 PM, Peter Somogyi
> > > > <psomogyi@cloudera.com.invalid> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Unfortunately, that would require a new RC for 2.1.5 and I'm afraid
> > > > > Guanghao already started the process for 2.0.0.
> > > > >
> > > > > On Sat, May 25, 2019 at 12:21 PM 张铎(Duo Zhang) <
> > palomino219@gmail.com>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >> A new issue can always solve the problem, I believe. I mean,
> revert
> > > the
> > > > >> addendum from branch-2.2-, and open a new issue, which just
> changes
> > > the
> > > > >> annotation for branch-2.2-, and commit the addendum again, with
a
> > new
> > > > >> commit message.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Peter Somogyi <psomogyi@apache.org>于2019年5月25日
周六16:42写道:
> > > > >>
> > > > >>> On the 2.1.5RC0 testing I noticed that the release notes
do not
> > state
> > > > >> that
> > > > >>> LossyCounting was moved to IA.Private. This is tricky since
the
> > > > original
> > > > >>> commit which introduced the incompatibility was not committed
to
> > > > >>> branch-2.1, only the addendum which only modified the IA
> > annotation.
> > > > For
> > > > >>> 2.2.0 we have the same problem, however, 2.2.0 was added
as fixed
> > > > version
> > > > >>> to HBASE-21991 even though only the addendum was committed
to
> that
> > > > branch
> > > > >>> as well.
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> Do we have any best practices for such a case?
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> Thanks,
> > > > >>> Peter
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> On Fri, May 10, 2019 at 6:57 PM Sakthi <
> sakthivel.azhaku@gmail.com
> > >
> > > > >> wrote:
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>> Looks good to me.
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> Sakthi
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> On Fri, May 10, 2019 at 6:18 AM 张铎(Duo Zhang) <
> > > palomino219@gmail.com>
> > > > >>>> wrote:
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>> +1.
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>> Jan Hentschel <jan.hentschel@ultratendency.com>
于2019年5月10日周五
> > > > >>> 下午9:08写道:
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>>> Also +1 for making it IA.Private.
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>> From: Peter Somogyi <psomogyi@apache.org>
> > > > >>>>>> Reply-To: "dev@hbase.apache.org" <dev@hbase.apache.org>
> > > > >>>>>> Date: Friday, May 10, 2019 at 1:41 PM
> > > > >>>>>> To: "dev@hbase.apache.org" <dev@hbase.apache.org>
> > > > >>>>>> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Moving IA.Public class
LossyCounting to
> > > > >>>> IA.Private
> > > > >>>>>> in all maintenance branches
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>> +1 on moving LossyCounting to IA.Private
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>> On Fri, May 10, 2019 at 7:54 AM Stack <stack@duboce.net
> <mailto:
> > > > >>>>>> stack@duboce.net>> wrote:
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>> Looks good to me.
> > > > >>>>>> S
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>> On Thu, May 9, 2019 at 7:02 PM Sean Busbey <busbey@apache.org
> > > > >>> <mailto:
> > > > >>>>>> busbey@apache.org>> wrote:
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>> Hi folks!
> > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>> just a heads up that a few of us are planning
to move a class
> > out
> > > > >>> of
> > > > >>>>>>> the public API without a deprecation cycle.
> > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>> From the planned release note:
> > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>> The class LossyCounting was unintentionally
marked Public
> but
> > > > >> was
> > > > >>>>> never
> > > > >>>>>>>> intended to be part of our public API.
This oversight has
> been
> > > > >>>>>> corrected
> > > > >>>>>>>> and LossyCounting is now marked as Private
and going forward
> > > > >> may
> > > > >>> be
> > > > >>>>>>>> subject to additional breaking changes
or removal without
> > > > >> notice.
> > > > >>>> If
> > > > >>>>>> you
> > > > >>>>>>>> have taken a dependency on this class
we recommend cloning
> it
> > > > >>>> locally
> > > > >>>>>>> into
> > > > >>>>>>>> your project before upgrading to this
release.
> > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>> This class was came in via HBASE-19722 and
was published in
> > HBase
> > > > >>>>>>> 1.4.6, 2.0.2, and 2.1.3 (and depending on
RC timing might be
> in
> > > > >>>>>>> 2.2.0).
> > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>> It will move to IA.Private as of 1.4.10,
1.5.0, 2.0.6, 2.1.5
> > and
> > > > >>>> later
> > > > >>>>>>> (maybe 2.2.1 depending on RC timing). The
class already has
> > > > >>>>>>> backwards-incompatible changes set to happen
in upcoming
> > releases
> > > > >>>>>>> 1.4.10, 1.5.0, and 2.2.0.
> > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>> Please speak up sooner rather than later
if you'll have a
> > problem
> > > > >>>>>>> voting on RCs that include this change, either
here or on
> > > > >>>> HBASE-21991.
> > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

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