I think there's a distinction from porting to the newest release (0.94.x, which is not yet really widely deployed, though starting to get there) compared to porting to a one-old release (0.92.x). I think we should be especially conservative about adding even non-invasive features to "stable" branches. The higher the "y" in 0.x.y, the more conservative we should be, since it implies that branch has gone through quite a bit of stabilization and we should avoid risk.
-Todd On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 10:48 AM, Ted Yu <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi, > As release manager of 0.92.x, I want to poll your opinion on porting policy > from 0.94 to 0.92 > > Earlier there was email thread 'Porting policy from 0.96+ to 0.94'. > From that thread, I think there was green light for porting non invasive, > small new features if some committer/party shows interest. > My interpretation of 'non invasive' is that the feature doesn't change > HFile format or IPC protocol. We would always guarantee rolling upgrade > from earlier 0.92 release to newer release. > > Particular JIRA leading to this poll: > HBASE-6726 Port HBASE-4465 'Lazy-seek optimization for StoreFile scanners' > to 0.92 > > Your comment is welcome. -- Todd Lipcon Software Engineer, Cloudera
