Changing the connection identity behavior in the middle of a release series seems like a bad idea.
The 0.20 releases did connection identity based on Configuration contents, 0.90 changed this to Configuration instance identity, then 0.90.5 would be going back to contents again (acknowledged with a smarter subset and guards against changes)? If anyone running 0.90 relies on the current behavior to enforce separate connections (for whatever reason), using separate Configuration instances, this would break that behavior and appear as a regression right? Changing these underlying assumptions in a minor release doesn't seem right. I agree it's nice to have the backport for those interested in trying it. But I'd need some convincing that the current 0.90 behavior is completely broken rather than sub-optimal to agree to include it. --gh On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 9:55 AM, Ted Yu <[email protected]> wrote: > One reason for my endorsement is that it would take 0.92 quite some time to > reach the level of stability of 0.90.4 > I really think HBASE-3777 would benefit HBase users a lot, and reducing > potential future inquiry about connection-related issues. > > Of course, backporting increases the amount of work for validation of > 0.90.5 > But I think it is worth it. > > My two cents. > > On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 9:47 AM, Jean-Daniel Cryans <[email protected] > >wrote: > > > I'm -0 at the moment, it's a big patch to include in a point release. > > > > I'm glad the work was done tho because it means those interested (like > > me) can directly patch it in and test it (at my own risk). > > > > J-D > > > > On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 9:29 AM, Ted Yu <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Hi, > > > Bright Fulton has volunteered to backport HBASE-3777 to 0.90 > > > I endorse his effort. > > > > > > If you have comment(s), please share. > > > > > > I will open a new JIRA for this effort if this motion passes. > > > > > > Thanks > > > > > >
