The possibility of HBASE-3777 creating bigger trouble than without is low, in my opinion. Maybe we should conduct a poll in user mailing list and count the votes.
On Tue, May 3, 2011 at 5:34 PM, Jean-Daniel Cryans <[email protected]>wrote: > > Actually these two actions are related. > > I can imagine the disappointment among hbase users if HBASE-3777 weren't > > included in 0.90.3 > > I can also imagine the disappointment if we release a 0.90.3 that > contains more bugs than it fixes, it goes both ways. Moreover, > HBASE-3777 wasn't targeted and still isn't targeted for 0.90.3, so I > don't see how even if someone paid attention to the jira they would > expect to see it in 0.90.3 > > I'd like to state that I'm not trying to discredit the work that was > done in that Jira, it was a perfect example of open source > collaboration, but I'm rather trying to point out that it's a big > change and that the bigger the change the better the chances are that > there will be bugs lurking in it. You could easily list big patches > that were committed to point releases in the past and I would agree > with you that this is something we've done, but I can also recall a > number of those changes that introduced more bugs and even made some > releases unusable (like 0.20.4). Let's try to learn from our errors. > > Finally, even if it's not in 0.90.3, the fact that a backport be made > available means that people can patch it in themselves or that other > distros can decide to include it (like in the next CDH3 update). And > finally we could do a 0.90.4 with it. > > J-D >
