On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 10:18 AM, Stack <st...@duboce.net> wrote: > On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 9:58 AM, Allen Wittenauer > <awittena...@linkedin.com> wrote: >> >> Let me understand this: >> >> a) the hbase folks have been required to patch hadoop due to bugs > > The branch is to work on adding a feature to 0.20, not for fixing bugs. > >> c) we finally have momentum on getting 0.21 out the door >> d) hey, let's make their life easier and take resources out of 0.21 by >> creating a branch >> > > The above is a fallacious setup. How does a branch in 0.20 detract > from the 0.21 momentum (The append feature that we'd work on in 0.20 > branch has little relation to how append works in 0.21).
For what it's worth, though, the majority of the size of the 0.20 append patch is made up of additional unit tests. I have started forward-porting these new tests to the trunk append and it's already exposed a number of bugs. So while it's tempting to say that the 0.20 append is "wasted effort", it really is benefiting the entire community and the 0.21 release as well. -Todd > > >> Are we willing to create a branch for everyone that asks? What happens if >> mahout/lucene/solr/joes-random-application asks? Is it a good idea to >> create a branch that hopefully has a very short life time? Is it the >> latest fashion amongst the PMC to request random branches? >> >> trunk >> 0.21 >> 0.20 >> 0.20-append >> 0.20-security-sure-hope-this-turns-into-1.0 >> 0.20-lifecycle-management-stuff-that-seems-to-never-get-committed >> ... >> >> I'm not PMC, but can I make requests too, since I have to patch what we use? >> > > Of course you can. > >> I'd rather have the HBase folks put pressure on the Hadoop PMC to get 0.21 >> out the door than create a custom-to-be-thrown-away-in-less-than-a-year >> branch. This way we *all* benefit rather than a select, but vocal group. > > We're all behind 0.21. Its the future. > > St.Ack > -- Todd Lipcon Software Engineer, Cloudera
