Thanks for your comment, Todd. I have observed some flexibility in this regard from, say cdh3u4a:
http://archive.cloudera.com/ebay/cdh3u4a-rc1/cdh/3/hbase-0.92.1+82.releasenotes.html Cheers On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 10:50 AM, Todd Lipcon <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 >
