Sorry if I misinterpreted. If it was commit speed is the concern I generally agree -- but this patch had a +1 from one of the owners (jimmy) so committing it wasn't unreasonable. I think the bigger point is that we need to be more vigilant about compatibility, especially with late point releases.
Jon. On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 7:36 PM, Andrew Purtell <[email protected]> wrote: > I didn't say the revert is not reasonable. > > > > On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 7:32 PM, Jonathan Hsieh <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Andrew, >> >> I agree if a new patch under discussion and a commit was made -- bad >> form to commit. >> >> However, a revert within 24 hours seems reasonable, especially if done >> by the original committer. A revert is done to undo harm (failed >> build, massive test failures, or serious bug found with nontrivial >> effort to repair). >> >> Personally, I'd rather have a bad commit, a revert and then a single >> clean commit (even if this last one came a few days later) instead of >> a bad commit, and then a series of addendums that come a few days >> later. >> >> Jon. >> >> On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 7:20 PM, Andrew Purtell <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> > I'm also concerned that the revert happened here while discussion was >> > ongoing. Given the latest comments on the issue, this could have been >> > handled by a new issue that replaces the offending code with reflection. >> I >> > don't care about the revert per se but would ask we avoid making changes >> > out from under a discussion until the matter is resolved with consensus. >> We >> > will have cleaner revision history and less churn overall as a result. I >> > know many of us have to-do lists of HBase JIRAs to retire, but there is >> no >> > need to be hasty. Because we are all busy, unnecessary commit speed makes >> > it more likely mistakes like this will slip by review in the first place >> > too. >> > >> > For your consideration. >> > >> > >> > On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 5:40 PM, Ted <[email protected]> wrote: >> > >> >> No. >> >> The release was cut before the revert. >> >> >> >> On Feb 11, 2013, at 5:35 PM, Enis Söztutar <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> >> > I was going to +1 the release, with the following checks I did: >> >> > - Checked md5 sums >> >> > - Checked gpg signature (gpg --verify ) >> >> > - Checked included documentation book.html, etc. >> >> > - Running unit tests (passed on unsecure, secure) >> >> > - Started in local mode, run LoadTestTool >> >> > - integration tests (not working fully properly, but expected since >> >> > HBASE-7521 is not in yet) >> >> > >> >> > I guess this means that the release candidate has sunk, right? >> >> > Enis >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 4:59 PM, Stack <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> > >> >> >> Good catch Jon. >> >> >> >> >> >> We need to be vigilant here all. >> >> >> >> >> >> Incompatibilities cost users and those following behind us as they >> burn >> >> >> cycles doing gymnastics trying to get over the incompatibility -- if >> it >> >> is >> >> >> possible to get over the incompatibility at all. They make us look >> bad. >> >> >> Worse, usually the incompatibility is found months later after we >> have >> >> all >> >> >> moved on and have long forgot what it was we committed (and even >> why) so >> >> >> all the more reason to be on the look out at commit time. >> >> >> >> >> >> St.Ack >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 4:48 PM, Jonathan Hsieh <[email protected]> >> >> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >>> Apache Hat: What a particular vendor chooses to puts in its releases >> >> >>> shouldn't affect an Apache release and especially if we are breaking >> >> >>> the >> >> >>> project's versioning / compatibility rules. >> >> >>> >> >> >>> Jon. >> >> >>> >> >> >>> On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 4:32 PM, Ted Yu <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >> >>>> I downloaded hadoop-0.20.2+737 from Cloudera website. >> >> >>>> >> >> >>>> I found getShortUserName() in UserGroupInformation >> >> >>>> >> >> >>>> Haven't checked other 0.20.x source code yet. >> >> >>>> >> >> >>>> FYI >> >> >>>> >> >> >>>> On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 4:24 PM, Jonathan Hsieh <[email protected]> >> >> >>> wrote: >> >> >>>> >> >> >>>>> Hey guys, I saw HBASE-7814 [1] -- a backport committed to 0.94 >> that >> >> >>>>> makes HBase 0.94 now require Hadoop 1.0 (instead of the older >> >> >>>>> hadoops). This was supposed to be a new requirement for hbase >> >> 0.96.0. >> >> >>>>> [2] >> >> >>>>> >> >> >>>>> Are we ok with making the next 0.94 upgrade incompatible? (And >> if >> >> we >> >> >>>>> are we need to release note this kind of stuff). >> >> >>>>> >> >> >>>>> Jon. >> >> >>>>> >> >> >>>>> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-7814 >> >> >>>>> >> >> >>>>> [2] >> >> >> >> >> >> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/hbase-dev/201210.mbox/%3ccadcmmghtqx73jzte4schy04iqs9npzp3u84hm2sm7icl6r8...@mail.gmail.com%3E >> >> >>>>> >> >> >>>>> >> >> >>>>> On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 11:56 AM, Enis Söztutar < >> [email protected]> >> >> >>> wrote: >> >> >>>>>> The backporting situation for 0.94 is an exception it seems, >> because >> >> >>> of >> >> >>>>> the >> >> >>>>>> fact that 96 is so late. But until 96 comes out, we can keep up >> the >> >> >>>>> current >> >> >>>>>> approach. It has worked mostly for the time being. >> >> >>>>>> >> >> >>>>>> Enis >> >> >>>>>> >> >> >>>>>> >> >> >>>>>> On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 5:20 PM, Andrew Purtell < >> [email protected] >> >> >>> >> >> >>>>> wrote: >> >> >>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>> That said, let's make sure every backport has meaningful >> >> >>> justification >> >> >>>>>>> (determined by consensus). >> >> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>> On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 5:19 PM, Andrew Purtell < >> >> >> [email protected]> >> >> >>>>>>> wrote: >> >> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>> -1 until we have an actual stable 0.96 release. >> >> >>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>> On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 3:15 PM, Elliott Clark < >> [email protected] >> >> >>> >> >> >>>>> wrote: >> >> >>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>>> Lately there have been a lot of issues being committed to >> trunk >> >> >>> and >> >> >>>>>>>>> also back-ported to 0.94 (I've done it myself too). Since >> we're >> >> >>> so >> >> >>>>> far >> >> >>>>>>>>> into 0.94's release cycle should we think about not allowing >> >> >> minor >> >> >>>>>>>>> features >> >> >>>>>>>>> and code clean ups to be back-ported ? >> >> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>> -- >> >> >>>>>>> Best regards, >> >> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>> - Andy >> >> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>> Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - >> Piet >> >> >>> Hein >> >> >>>>>>> (via Tom White) >> >> >>>>> >> >> >>>>> >> >> >>>>> >> >> >>>>> -- >> >> >>>>> // Jonathan Hsieh (shay) >> >> >>>>> // Software Engineer, Cloudera >> >> >>>>> // [email protected] >> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >>> -- >> >> >>> // Jonathan Hsieh (shay) >> >> >>> // Software Engineer, Cloudera >> >> >>> // [email protected] >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> > >> > >> > -- >> > Best regards, >> > >> > - Andy >> > >> > Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet Hein >> > (via Tom White) >> >> >> >> -- >> // Jonathan Hsieh (shay) >> // Software Engineer, Cloudera >> // [email protected] >> > > > > -- > Best regards, > > - Andy > > Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet Hein > (via Tom White) -- // Jonathan Hsieh (shay) // Software Engineer, Cloudera // [email protected]
