> From: Todd Lipcon <[email protected]> > I'd also be happy to commit what we have to a new branch, then do > followup work on that branch until people feel comfortable merging it.
Ted, Subbu, this sounds like a good idea. What do you think? Best regards, - Andy Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet Hein (via Tom White) ----- Original Message ----- > From: Todd Lipcon <[email protected]> > To: Andrew Purtell <[email protected]> > Cc: Ted Yu <[email protected]>; Subbu M Iyer <[email protected]>; > "[email protected]" <[email protected]> > Sent: Thursday, September 15, 2011 8:38 AM > Subject: Re: HBASE-4213 > > On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 8:33 AM, Andrew Purtell <[email protected]> > wrote: >> My recommendation is to begin adding test cases that test RS and ZK quorum > peer failures happening while the schema update is in progress, and insure > that > failures are handled and the update process recovers and succeeds. Once there > is > a set of such tests we can evaluate their coverage and introduce the feature. > It > would still be risky, but there would be some basis for believing it to be > practical. > > +1. I'd also be happy to commit what we have to a new branch, then do > followup work on that branch until people feel comfortable merging it. > Branching gives us the plus of having smaller patches to review, > without the risk introducd by merging half-done things in trunk. > > BTW: I realize I'm on the more conservative side in the community - > please hold me to the same or higher standards :) I don't trust my own > code more than anyone else's! > > -Todd > -- > Todd Lipcon > Software Engineer, Cloudera >
