>> We could query user@ before considering commit. Let's do this. Objections ?
On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 12:17 PM, Andrew Purtell <[email protected]>wrote: > > 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? > > Does anyone do this? We could query user@ before considering commit. > > > I agree it's nice to have the backport for those interested in > > trying it. > > Another option to consider is putting it into a branch that Ted could > maintain, if he's agreeable to that and someone is going to -1 putting this > into 0.90. > > - Andy > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: Gary Helmling <[email protected]> > > To: [email protected] > > Cc: > > Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2011 12:06 PM > > Subject: Re: backporting HBASE-3777 to 0.90 > > > > 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 > >> > > > >> > > >> > > >
