No that's not the point either, but never mind, either I'm not being clear, or it's only me.
On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 7:45 PM, Jonathan Hsieh <[email protected]> wrote: > Sorry if I misinterpreted. If it was commit speed is the concern I > generally agree -- but this patch had a +1 from one of the owners > (jimmy) so committing it wasn't unreasonable. I think the bigger > point is that we need to be more vigilant about compatibility, > especially with late point releases. > > Jon. > > On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 7:36 PM, Andrew Purtell <[email protected]> > wrote: > > 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) > > > > -- > // 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)
