> Let's move the discussions to individual backporting jiras.
+1
On Tuesday, March 5, 2013, Enis Söztutar wrote:
> The general understanding is that we should not have been in this
> condition. But since we are, and as per Lars' comments, we desperately
> need some of the features.
>
> Let's mov
The general understanding is that we should not have been in this
condition. But since we are, and as per Lars' comments, we desperately need
some of the features.
Let's move the discussions to individual backporting jiras. We can gauge
reward / risk on a case by case basis (which we have been doi
On Fri, Mar 1, 2013 at 6:10 PM, lars hofhansl wrote:
> So it seems that until we have a stable 0.96 (maybe 0.96.1 or 0.96.2) we
> have three options:
> 1. Backport new features to 0.94 as we see fit as long as we do not
> destabilize 0.94.
> 2. Declare a certain point release (0.94.6 looks like a
I agree with Andrew. I don't think a vote is required.
It seems that people who are more for option #2 also said there are
pretty ok with option #1 too, while people who are mainly for option
#1 said 0 or -1 for options #2 and #3...
So even if I prefer option #2, I think option #1 got more "votes
I'm not sure that is necessary. I think we can establish consensus without
doing so, but if you like, call a vote.
On Sun, Mar 3, 2013 at 10:12 PM, Ted wrote:
> Do we need to start another thread voting for options 1 and 2 ?
>
> We should make a decision soon so that the next 0.94 release can b
Do we need to start another thread voting for options 1 and 2 ?
We should make a decision soon so that the next 0.94 release can be made.
Cheers
On Mar 3, 2013, at 5:50 AM, Andrew Purtell wrote:
> Concur. +1 on option #1 and #2, with #1 preferred, -1 on #3.
>
> On Sat, Mar 2, 2013 at 10:10 A
Concur. +1 on option #1 and #2, with #1 preferred, -1 on #3.
On Sat, Mar 2, 2013 at 10:10 AM, lars hofhansl wrote:
> So it seems that until we have a stable 0.96 (maybe 0.96.1 or 0.96.2) we
> have three options:
> 1. Backport new features to 0.94 as we see fit as long as we do not
> destabilize
On Sat, Mar 2, 2013 at 1:49 PM, Jonathan Hsieh wrote:
> The points I'm trying to make about 0.95.x is that ideally it is where the
> new features get further hardened (as opposed to the stable branch).
> Ideally the release manager for that version will start gate keeping what
> new major featur
> It seems we're mostly in agreement and just differ a bit in what
> constitutes a feature vs. a bug fix.
>
> -- Lars
>
>
>
>
> From: Jonathan Hsieh
> To: dev@hbase.apache.org
> Cc: lars hofhansl
> Sent: Saturday, March 2, 20
athan Hsieh
To: dev@hbase.apache.org
Cc: lars hofhansl
Sent: Saturday, March 2, 2013 8:26 AM
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] More new feature backports to 0.94.
To be clear, a key point is that unit testing is a required but not sufficient.
I need anecdotes about system testing with at least some unexpected
t a stable release.
-- Lars
From: Jonathan Hsieh
To: dev@hbase.apache.org
Cc: lars hofhansl
Sent: Saturday, March 2, 2013 7:36 AM
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] More new feature backports to 0.94.
In general, I have a preference against backporting features for t
dingly (i.e. we should not have to
> > create
> > > a 0.94.7.1 a week after the creation of the 0.94.6.1).
> > >
> > > In the future, the test suite should also help us to estimate and
> > minimize
> > > the risk. We're not there yet, but having a good test coverage is key
> for
> > >
y for
> > version 1 imho.
> >
> > So that makes me +1 for backport, and 0 for branching (+1 if there is a
> > good reason and a plan, but here it's a theoretical discussion, so,...
> ;-)
> > )
> >
> > Nicolas
> >
> >
> > On Sat, Mar 2, 2013 at 4:44 AM, lars hofhansl wrote:
>
retical discussion, so,... ;-)
> )
>
> Nicolas
>
>
> On Sat, Mar 2, 2013 at 4:44 AM, lars hofhansl wrote:
>
> > I did mean "stablizing". What I was trying to point is that stuff we
> > backport might stabilize HBase.
> >
> >
> >
>
Mar 2, 2013 at 4:44 AM, lars hofhansl wrote:
>
>> I did mean "stablizing". What I was trying to point is that stuff we
>> backport might stabilize HBase.
>>
>>
>>
>> ________
>> From: Ted Yu
>> To: dev@hbase
> From: Ted Yu
> To: dev@hbase.apache.org; lars hofhansl
> Sent: Friday, March 1, 2013 7:30 PM
> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] More new feature backports to 0.94.
>
> bq. That is only if we do not backport stabilizing "features".
> Did you mean destabilizi
I did mean "stablizing". What I was trying to point is that stuff we backport
might stabilize HBase.
From: Ted Yu
To: dev@hbase.apache.org; lars hofhansl
Sent: Friday, March 1, 2013 7:30 PM
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] More new feature backports to
t;
> Now, is that a destabilizing
> "feature", or will it make HBase more stable and hence is an
> "improvement"? Depends on viewpoint, doesn't it?
> -- Lars
>
>
>
> From: Jean-Marc Spaggiari
> To: dev@hbase.apach
From: Jean-Marc Spaggiari
To: dev@hbase.apache.org
Sent: Friday, March 1, 2013 7:12 PM
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] More new feature backports to 0.94.
@Lars: No, not any concern about anything already backported. Just a
preference to #2 because it seems to make things m
From: Jean-Marc Spaggiari
To: dev@hbase.apache.org
Sent: Friday, March 1, 2013 7:12 PM
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] More new feature backports to 0.94.
@Lars: No, not any concern about anything already backported. Just a
preference to #2 because it seems to make things m
From: Jean-Marc Spaggiari
To: dev@hbase.apache.org
Sent: Friday, March 1, 2013 7:12 PM
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] More new feature backports to 0.94.
@Lars: No, not any concern about anything already backported. Just a
preference to #2 because it seems to make things m
4.6 branch (in addition to the usual 0.94.6
>> >>> tag) and than create 0.94.6.x fix only releases. I would volunteer to
>> >>> maintain a 0.94.6 branch in addition to the 0.94 branch.
>> >>> 3. Categorically do not backport new features into 0.94 and defer to
>> 0.95.
>> >
0.94.6.x fix only releases. I would volunteer to
> >>> maintain a 0.94.6 branch in addition to the 0.94 branch.
> >>> 3. Categorically do not backport new features into 0.94 and defer to
> 0.95.
> >>>
> >>> I'd be +1 on option #1 and #2, and
branch in addition to the 0.94 branch.
>>> 3. Categorically do not backport new features into 0.94 and defer to 0.95.
>>>
>>> I'd be +1 on option #1 and #2, and -1 on option #3.
>>>
>>> -- Lars
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
I'd be +1 on option #1 and #2, and -1 on option #3.
>>>
>>> -- Lars
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> From: Jonathan Hsieh
>>> To: dev@hbase.apache.org; lars hofhansl
>>> Sent: Friday, March 1
that the patch does not destabilize the 0.94 code base; that
>> > has to be done on a case by case basis.
>> >
>> >
>> > Also, there is no stable release of HBase other than 0.94 (0.95 is not
>> > stable, and we specifically state that it should not be used
specifically state that it should not be used in
> production).
> >
> > -- Lars
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > From: Jonathan Hsieh
> > To: dev@hbase.apache.org
> > Sent: Friday, March 1, 2013 8:31 AM
> > Subject: [D
_
> From: Jonathan Hsieh
> To: dev@hbase.apache.org; lars hofhansl
> Sent: Friday, March 1, 2013 3:11 PM
> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] More new feature backports to 0.94.
>
> I think we are basically agreeing -- my primary concern is bringing new
> features in vital
on #3.
-- Lars
From: Jonathan Hsieh
To: dev@hbase.apache.org; lars hofhansl
Sent: Friday, March 1, 2013 3:11 PM
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] More new feature backports to 0.94.
I think we are basically agreeing -- my primary concern is bringing new
features
by case basis.
> >>
> >>
> >> Also, there is no stable release of HBase other than 0.94 (0.95 is not
> >> stable, and we specifically state that it should not be used in
> production).
> >>
> >> -- Lars
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >&g
the 0.94 code base; that
>> has to be done on a case by case basis.
>>
>>
>> Also, there is no stable release of HBase other than 0.94 (0.95 is not
>> stable, and we specifically state that it should not be used in production).
>>
>> -- Lars
>>
>
ther than 0.94 (0.95 is not
> stable, and we specifically state that it should not be used in production).
>
> -- Lars
>
>
>
>
> From: Jonathan Hsieh
> To: dev@hbase.apache.org
> Sent: Friday, March 1, 2013 8:31 AM
> Subject: [DIS
; Also, there is no stable release of HBase other than 0.94 (0.95 is not
> stable, and we specifically state that it should not be used in production).
>
> -- Lars
>
>
>
>
> From: Jonathan Hsieh
> To: dev@hbase.apache.org
> Sent: Friday,
: [DISCUSS] More new feature backports to 0.94.
I was thinking more about HBASE-7360 (backport snapshots to 0.94) and also
saw HBASE-7965 which suggests porting some major-ish features (table locks,
online merge) in to the apache 0.94 line. We should chat about what we
want to do about new features and
+1 to all of this. Additionally, please keep in mind that when we backport
something now, we have to backport it to both 0.95 and 0.94.
- Dave
On Fri, Mar 1, 2013 at 8:31 AM, Jonathan Hsieh wrote:
> I was thinking more about HBASE-7360 (backport snapshots to 0.94) and also
> saw HBASE-7965 wh
I was thinking more about HBASE-7360 (backport snapshots to 0.94) and also
saw HBASE-7965 which suggests porting some major-ish features (table locks,
online merge) in to the apache 0.94 line. We should chat about what we
want to do about new features and bringing them into stable versions (0.94
36 matches
Mail list logo
