> From: Todd Lipcon <t...@cloudera.com> > Not to be too mean and discouraging to everyone passing around patches > against CDH3 and/or 0.20-append, but just an FYI: there is no chance > that these things will get committed to an 0.20 branch without first > going through trunk. Sharing patches and testing them on real > workloads in 20 is a nice step in that direction, but if you're > discouraged that they aren't checked in yet, please help on getting > them up to date on trunk, finishing out pending review comments, and > making sure they also work in trunk :)
This is not discouraging. :-) HBasers patch CDH because trunk -- anything > 0.20 actually -- is not trusted by consensus if you look at all of the production deployments. Does ANYONE run trunk under anything approaching "production"? And trunk/upstream has a history of ignoring any HBase specific concern. So the use of and trading of patches will probably continue for a while, maybe forever. Part of the problem is the expectation that any patch provided against trunk may generate months of back and forth, as we have seen, which presents difficulities to a potential contributor who does not work on e.g. HDFS matters full time. Alternatively it may pick up a committer as sponsor and then be vetoed by Yahoo because they're mad at Cloudera over some unrelated issue and a patch appears to have a Cloudera sponsor and/or or vice versa. Now, that situation I describe _is_ discouraging. It's not enough to say that we must contribute through trunk. Trunk needs to earn back our trust. I believe I recently saw discussion that append should be removed or disabled by default on 0.22 or trunk. Did you see anything like this? If I am mistaken, fine. If not, this is going in the wrong direction, for example. - Andy
