After discussion below, I wonder if 0.92.0RC would come out before 0.90.4 I hope that's the case - we're looking forward to coprocessor which wouldn't be in 0.90.x anyway.
Regards On Tue, May 3, 2011 at 9:07 PM, Stack <[email protected]> wrote: > IMO, HBASE-3777 is a critical fix -- it even addresses a regression > introduced in 0.90.0 -- but its too risky putting it out now in a > release from branch, at least just yet. It was only committed a day > or so ago (Thanks Karthick and Ted for the hard work getting it in). > I think it needs a bit of bake-in. We should be rolling a 0.92.0RC > pretty soon. It'll get some testing then. > > We can not risk a point release that is less stable than previous > versions; if we err, the cost in terms of support and community trust > is just too high. > > Meantime, any chance of a backport of hbase-3777 Ted? > > Good stuff, > St.Ack > > > On Tue, May 3, 2011 at 6:00 PM, Ted Yu <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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 > >> > > >
