I just don't see a why we would back port. We're going to release a 2.0 when things are ready. It will be a major feature release. Region server groups is a major feature. Backporting to branch-1 seems like an end run around what sem ver is supposed to mean (not the api guarantees, the actual meaning).
Backporting major features is a bad habit that the Hadoop community seems to have. We shouldn't follow their lead. On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 2:51 PM, Andrew Purtell <[email protected]> wrote: > > Are we being more stringent with 0.98 because it is expected to be more > stable than a 1.x release? > > I am not being more stringent with 0.98. A backport to branch-1 can be > justified IMHO because there appears to be active interest in having it > there to deploy out into production somewhere. Is this also the case for > 0.98? As you may recall I accepted ZK-less assignment into 0.98 because > Yahoo indicated they'd run the code, so as a result it would get regular > use. It was a decision that wouldn't make sense if there wasn't going to be > active use and upkeep. Otherwise we increase risk and make some users > nervous (I seem to recall Cloudera did not pick up the ZK less assignment > change back when they were still on 0.98) without improved utility for > other users in trade. Just my thinking on the matter. > > > On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 2:24 PM, Francis Liu <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > performance tests focused on the impact of the feature on those who > > don't want it. > > Andy and Ted, Given that this code does not touch the write path or the > > read path at all it would seem practical to skip read/write perf tests > (ie > > YCSB, PE, etc)? > > > where the result will go into someone's production. > > Are we being more stringent with 0.98 because it is expected to be more > > stable than a 1.x release? > > > > > > On Wednesday, March 16, 2016 12:11 PM, Ted Yu <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > > bq. same things I asked for MOB: Functional, stability, and performance > > tests focused on the impact of the feature on those who don't want it. > > > > +1 on the above. > > > > On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 11:14 AM, Andrew Purtell <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > I would like to see the same things I asked for MOB: Functional, > > stability, > > > and performance tests focused on the impact of the feature on those who > > > don't want it. Can use the usual suspects: PE, LTT, YCSB, our ITs. > Given > > > how 6721 has been implemented I suspect favorable results will be easy > to > > > obtain. > > > > > > I think we would like to see a backport to branch-1 because we will be > > > bringing our production up to a 1.x soon. > > > > > > Its fair to consider a backport to 0.98 but as RM for that branch I'd > > like > > > to see it go into branch-1 first and also have a case where the result > > will > > > go into someone's production. > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 10:15 AM, Francis Liu <[email protected] > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > Hi, > > > > HBASE-6721 is now committed to trunk. It'd be great if it can be > > > > backported to 1.x and 0.98 so that we can use it internally as well > as > > > push > > > > up features and fixes. We have been running an internal version for > > > around > > > > 4 years. There's seems to be interest (HW, Bloomberg, Salesforce, > etc). > > > > Also given how modular the code is. There's barely any effect in > > existing > > > > code paths. > > > > Seeding the criteria with Andy's suggestions in jira: > > > > 1. Stability - Unit tests and ?2. functional3. Performance - > Read/write > > > > path was not affected. Some small changes related to assignment. > > > > Thanks, > > > > Francis > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > Best regards, > > > > > > - Andy > > > > > > Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet > Hein > > > (via Tom White) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > Best regards, > > - Andy > > Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet Hein > (via Tom White) >
