Thanks Lars, I think it is a good listing of the options we have. I'll be +1 for #1 and #2, with #1 being a preference.
Enis On Fri, Mar 1, 2013 at 6:10 PM, lars hofhansl <[email protected]> wrote: > So it seems that until we have a stable 0.96 (maybe 0.96.1 or 0.96.2) we > have three options: > 1. Backport new features to 0.94 as we see fit as long as we do not > destabilize 0.94. > 2. Declare a certain point release (0.94.6 looks like a good candidate) as > a "long term", create an 0.94.6 branch (in addition to the usual 0.94.6 > tag) and than create 0.94.6.x fix only releases. I would volunteer to > maintain a 0.94.6 branch in addition to the 0.94 branch. > 3. Categorically do not backport new features into 0.94 and defer to 0.95. > > I'd be +1 on option #1 and #2, and -1 on option #3. > > -- Lars > > > > ________________________________ > From: Jonathan Hsieh <[email protected]> > To: [email protected]; lars hofhansl <[email protected]> > Sent: Friday, March 1, 2013 3:11 PM > Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] More new feature backports to 0.94. > > I think we are basically agreeing -- my primary concern is bringing new > features in vital paths introduces more risk, I'd rather not backport major > new features unless we achieve a higher level of assurance through system > and basic fault injection testing. > > For the three current examples -- snapshots, zk table locks, online merge > -- I actually would prefer not including any in apache 0.94. Of the bunch, > I feel the table locks are the most risky since it affects vital paths a > user must use, where as snapshots and online merge are features that a > user could choose to use but does not necessarily have to use. I'll voice > my concerns, reason for concerns, and justifications on the individual > jiras. > > I do feel that new features being in a dev/preview release like 0.95 aligns > well and doesn't create situations where different versions have different > feature sets. New features should be introduced and hardened in a > dev/preview version, and the turn into the production ready versions after > they've been proven out a bit. > > Jon. > > On Fri, Mar 1, 2013 at 11:00 AM, lars hofhansl <[email protected]> wrote: > > > This is an open source project, as long as there is a volunteer to > > backport a patch I see no problem with doing this. > > The only thing we as the community should ensure is that it must be > > demonstrated that the patch does not destabilize the 0.94 code base; that > > has to be done on a case by case basis. > > > > > > Also, there is no stable release of HBase other than 0.94 (0.95 is not > > stable, and we specifically state that it should not be used in > production). > > > > -- Lars > > > > > > > > ________________________________ > > From: Jonathan Hsieh <[email protected]> > > To: [email protected] > > Sent: Friday, March 1, 2013 8:31 AM > > Subject: [DISCUSS] More new feature backports to 0.94. > > > > I was thinking more about HBASE-7360 (backport snapshots to 0.94) and > also > > saw HBASE-7965 which suggests porting some major-ish features (table > locks, > > online merge) in to the apache 0.94 line. We should chat about what we > > want to do about new features and bringing them into stable versions > (0.94 > > today) and in general criteria we use for future versions. > > > > This is similar to the snapshots backport discussion and earlier backport > > discussions. Here's my understanding of high level points we basically > > agree upon. > > * Backporting new features to the previous major version incurs more cost > > when developing new features, pushes back efforts on making the trunk > > versions and reduces incentive to move to newer versions. > > * Backporting new features to earlier versions (0.9x.0, 0.9x.1) is > > reasonable since they are generally less stable. > > * Backporting new features to later version (0.9x.5, 0.9x.6) is less > > reasonable -- (ex: a 0.94.6, or 0.94.7 should only include robust > > features). > > * Backporting orthogonal features (snapshots) seems less risky than core > > changing features > > * An except: If multiple distributions declare intent to backport, it > makes > > sense to backport a feature. (snapshots for example). > > > > Some new circumstances and discussion topics: > > * We now have a dev branch (0.95) with looser compat requirements that we > > could more readily release with dev/preview versions. Shouldn't this > > reduce the need to backport features to the apache stable branches? > Would > > releases of these releases "replace" the 0.x.0 or 0.x.1 releases? > > * For major features in later versions we should raise the bar on the > > amount of testing probably be more explicit about what testing is done > > (unit tests not suffcient, system testing stories/resports a > requirement). > > Any other suggestions? > > > > Jon. > > > > -- > > // Jonathan Hsieh (shay) > > // Software Engineer, Cloudera > > // [email protected] > > > > > > -- > // Jonathan Hsieh (shay) > // Software Engineer, Cloudera > // [email protected] >
