> I'd switch from -1 to +1 if we can get +1s from people who have tried > it on clusters with several different real existing apps written by > several different teams.
This makes sense. My +1 was partly an agreement that I'd try it. 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: [email protected] > Cc: Andrew Purtell <[email protected]> > Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2011 12:40 PM > Subject: Re: backporting HBASE-3777 to 0.90 > > I'd switch from -1 to +1 if we can get +1s from people who have tried > it on clusters with several different real existing apps written by > several different teams. EG if we can verify that the CIQ workload, > the SU workload, and the TM workload all work with this patch with no > adverse effects, seems reasonable to commit. But just passing unit > tests doesn't seem like enough to me since it changes behavior in a > way that is difficult to predict. > > -Todd > > On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 4:33 AM, Ted Yu <[email protected]> wrote: >> One option is to publish the backported patch which passes all unit tests >> and 'certified' by people who play trial on it. >> >> The switch proposed by Todd is nice but difficult to implement. >> >> Cheers >> >> On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 12:29 PM, Todd Lipcon <[email protected]> > wrote: >> >>> On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 4:27 AM, Ted Yu <[email protected]> > wrote: >>> >>> We could query user@ before considering commit. >>> > Let's do this. >>> > >>> > Objections ? >>> > >>> >>> I don't think most users will know whether this will break them > until >>> it's "too late". Hence defaulting to current behavior, > and letting >>> people switch it if the current behavior isn't working for them. >>> >>> -Todd >>> -- >>> Todd Lipcon >>> Software Engineer, Cloudera >>> >> > > > > -- > Todd Lipcon > Software Engineer, Cloudera >
