Here's the backport jira: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-7360
On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 8:05 PM, Jonathan Hsieh <j...@cloudera.com> wrote: > Lars H is the release manager for 0.94 and it is his call for what he > will allow or disallow into it. If Lars is cool with enis's 'a' > option, I'm fine with it. > > I do feel that having to maintain code across 2-4 versions (trunk, > 0.96, 0.95, 0.94) is more significantly more painful than dealing with > 1. I am strongly in favor on not consider backporting this to 0.94 > until we have it solid and voted into trunk. > > wrt to enis's 'b' option using the 0.95 -- I think the plan for that > name is a 0.96 preview. > > Here's what I'll do. I'll re-open the issue and move it out from > under the HBASE-6055 umbrella. Let's continue discussion on this > topic there. There are a few isolated risks that could be introduced > and Matteo and I have mentioned some of them there. > > We still have should discuss the options for merges. The original > plan was to merge the offline branch (hbase-6055) into trunk first and > then later the online (hbase-7290) to trunk. In our testing, most of > the problems we are encountering now have to do with restore and clone > behavior (the simple online snapshot has been surprisingly-to-me > robust). As this becomes more robust, I'm leaning more and more > towards doing one offline+online merge of the hbase-7290 branch to > trunk. My question is after we merge to trunk, the plan would be to > merge offline+online to 0.94 right? > > Jon. > > On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 3:20 PM, Enis Söztutar <enis....@gmail.com> wrote: >> Hi, >>> It turns out that both Cloudera and Hortonworks have plans to backport >> this to 0.94 in their respective distributions (I don't think that is a >> secret, apologies if it was). >> It seems true :). From my HWX hat, I can say that we are interested in >> backporting snapshots into 0.94, and my apache hat says that if (at least) >> two companies are interested in this, we should do it in an official apache >> branch. Now, having said that, ideally we should not be putting new stuff >> into 0.94, which is a stable branch. On Hadoop, since they are past 1.0, >> they kind of solved this by adding new features in 1.1, 1.2, etc. >> >> I propose either: >> a) doing an exception for 0.94, and doing the backport there. We can do >> off by default. >> b) we can do a 0.95 which would basically be 0.94+snapshots. >> >> a) has the advantage of being the easier to maintain one, but main drawback >> would be to introduce possible destabilization and a major feature in the >> middle of stable releases >> b) has the advantage of being cleaner, but then we have to maintain 0.94, >> 0.95 and 0.96. >> >> Enis >> >> >> On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 12:53 PM, Andrew Purtell <apurt...@apache.org>wrote: >> >>> Just throwing it out there... If you're still including patch sets in >>> nightlies then one of us could port in the snapshots backport from CDH to >>> ASF. >>> >>> On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 12:49 PM, Jonathan Hsieh <j...@cloudera.com> wrote: >>> >>> > As I mentioned on the jira, I can go either way +/-0 -- currently >>> > there is only rpc-related patches that are different between trunk and >>> > 0.94. This does however mean more overhead from the folks committing >>> > code and testing related to this feature (me, matteo, jesse, ted?), >>> > which had me leaning more -0 >>> > >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Best regards, >>> >>> - Andy >>> >>> Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet Hein >>> (via Tom White) >>> > > > > -- > // Jonathan Hsieh (shay) > // Software Engineer, Cloudera > // j...@cloudera.com -- // Jonathan Hsieh (shay) // Software Engineer, Cloudera // j...@cloudera.com
