If you look at the comments in HBASE-7814, Lars' comment was logged at the same time as my notice of reversion:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-7814?focusedCommentId=13576253&page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel#comment-13576253 FYI On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 7:20 PM, Andrew Purtell <[email protected]> wrote: > I'm also concerned that the revert happened here while discussion was > ongoing. Given the latest comments on the issue, this could have been > handled by a new issue that replaces the offending code with reflection. I > don't care about the revert per se but would ask we avoid making changes > out from under a discussion until the matter is resolved with consensus. We > will have cleaner revision history and less churn overall as a result. I > know many of us have to-do lists of HBase JIRAs to retire, but there is no > need to be hasty. Because we are all busy, unnecessary commit speed makes > it more likely mistakes like this will slip by review in the first place > too. > > For your consideration. > > > On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 5:40 PM, Ted <[email protected]> wrote: > > > No. > > The release was cut before the revert. > > > > On Feb 11, 2013, at 5:35 PM, Enis Söztutar <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > I was going to +1 the release, with the following checks I did: > > > - Checked md5 sums > > > - Checked gpg signature (gpg --verify ) > > > - Checked included documentation book.html, etc. > > > - Running unit tests (passed on unsecure, secure) > > > - Started in local mode, run LoadTestTool > > > - integration tests (not working fully properly, but expected since > > > HBASE-7521 is not in yet) > > > > > > I guess this means that the release candidate has sunk, right? > > > Enis > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 4:59 PM, Stack <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > >> Good catch Jon. > > >> > > >> We need to be vigilant here all. > > >> > > >> Incompatibilities cost users and those following behind us as they > burn > > >> cycles doing gymnastics trying to get over the incompatibility -- if > it > > is > > >> possible to get over the incompatibility at all. They make us look > bad. > > >> Worse, usually the incompatibility is found months later after we have > > all > > >> moved on and have long forgot what it was we committed (and even why) > so > > >> all the more reason to be on the look out at commit time. > > >> > > >> St.Ack > > >> > > >> > > >> On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 4:48 PM, Jonathan Hsieh <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > >> > > >>> Apache Hat: What a particular vendor chooses to puts in its releases > > >>> shouldn't affect an Apache release and especially if we are breaking > > >>> the > > >>> project's versioning / compatibility rules. > > >>> > > >>> Jon. > > >>> > > >>> On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 4:32 PM, Ted Yu <[email protected]> wrote: > > >>>> I downloaded hadoop-0.20.2+737 from Cloudera website. > > >>>> > > >>>> I found getShortUserName() in UserGroupInformation > > >>>> > > >>>> Haven't checked other 0.20.x source code yet. > > >>>> > > >>>> FYI > > >>>> > > >>>> On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 4:24 PM, Jonathan Hsieh <[email protected]> > > >>> wrote: > > >>>> > > >>>>> Hey guys, I saw HBASE-7814 [1] -- a backport committed to 0.94 that > > >>>>> makes HBase 0.94 now require Hadoop 1.0 (instead of the older > > >>>>> hadoops). This was supposed to be a new requirement for hbase > > 0.96.0. > > >>>>> [2] > > >>>>> > > >>>>> Are we ok with making the next 0.94 upgrade incompatible? (And if > > we > > >>>>> are we need to release note this kind of stuff). > > >>>>> > > >>>>> Jon. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-7814 > > >>>>> > > >>>>> [2] > > >> > > > http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/hbase-dev/201210.mbox/%3ccadcmmghtqx73jzte4schy04iqs9npzp3u84hm2sm7icl6r8...@mail.gmail.com%3E > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 11:56 AM, Enis Söztutar <[email protected] > > > > >>> wrote: > > >>>>>> The backporting situation for 0.94 is an exception it seems, > because > > >>> of > > >>>>> the > > >>>>>> fact that 96 is so late. But until 96 comes out, we can keep up > the > > >>>>> current > > >>>>>> approach. It has worked mostly for the time being. > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> Enis > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 5:20 PM, Andrew Purtell < > [email protected] > > >>> > > >>>>> wrote: > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>>> That said, let's make sure every backport has meaningful > > >>> justification > > >>>>>>> (determined by consensus). > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 5:19 PM, Andrew Purtell < > > >> [email protected]> > > >>>>>>> wrote: > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> -1 until we have an actual stable 0.96 release. > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 3:15 PM, Elliott Clark < > [email protected] > > >>> > > >>>>> wrote: > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> Lately there have been a lot of issues being committed to trunk > > >>> and > > >>>>>>>>> also back-ported to 0.94 (I've done it myself too). Since > we're > > >>> so > > >>>>> far > > >>>>>>>>> into 0.94's release cycle should we think about not allowing > > >> minor > > >>>>>>>>> features > > >>>>>>>>> and code clean ups to be back-ported ? > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> -- > > >>>>>>> Best regards, > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> - Andy > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - > Piet > > >>> Hein > > >>>>>>> (via Tom White) > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> -- > > >>>>> // Jonathan Hsieh (shay) > > >>>>> // Software Engineer, Cloudera > > >>>>> // [email protected] > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> -- > > >>> // Jonathan Hsieh (shay) > > >>> // Software Engineer, Cloudera > > >>> // [email protected] > > >> > > > > > > -- > Best regards, > > - Andy > > Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet Hein > (via Tom White) >
