I didn't say the revert is not reasonable.
On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 7:32 PM, Jonathan Hsieh <[email protected]> wrote: > Andrew, > > I agree if a new patch under discussion and a commit was made -- bad > form to commit. > > However, a revert within 24 hours seems reasonable, especially if done > by the original committer. A revert is done to undo harm (failed > build, massive test failures, or serious bug found with nontrivial > effort to repair). > > Personally, I'd rather have a bad commit, a revert and then a single > clean commit (even if this last one came a few days later) instead of > a bad commit, and then a series of addendums that come a few days > later. > > Jon. > > 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) > > > > -- > // 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)
