On Wed, May 4, 2011 at 9:10 AM, Dave Latham <[email protected]> wrote:
> > I think it's worth putting more effort into getting 0.92 out the door as > soon as is reasonable to get this change and others out. Keep the point > releases as risk free as possible. Users should have a high degree of > confidence that they are strictly improvements, and if their system works > on > one point release, it should work on the next without modifications. > Absolutely agree. Point releases should change internal implementations, not interfaces (except for occasionally adding new additional ones). Implementation changes should be as small/risk free as possible. -Todd > 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 > > >> > > > > > > -- Todd Lipcon Software Engineer, Cloudera
