Thanks Andy.
I think the gist of the discussion boils down to this:We generally have two
goals: (1) follow semver from 1.0.0 onward and (2) avoid losing
features/improvements when upgrading from an older version to a newer one.
Turns out these two are conflicting unless we follow certain additional
policies.
The issue at hand was a performance improvement that we added to 0.98, 1.3.0,
and 2.0.0, but not 1.0.x, 1.1.x, and 1.2.x (x >= 1 in all cases)So when
somebody would upgrade from 0.98 to (say) 1.1.7 (if/when that's out) that
improvement would "silently" be lost.
I think the extra statement we have to make is that only the latest minor
version of the next major branch is guaranteed have all the improvements of the
previous major branch.Or phrased in other words: Improvements that are not bug
fixes will only go into the x.y.0 minor version, but not (by default anyway,
the RM should use good judgment) into any existing minor version (and thus not
in a patch version > 0)
If that's OK with everybody we can just state that and move on (and I'll shut
up :) ).
-- Lars
From: Andrew Purtell <[email protected]>
To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, July 16, 2015 8:58 AM
Subject: 0.98 patch acceptance criteria discussion
Hi devs,
I'd like to call your attention to an interesting and important discussion
taking place on the tail of HBASE-12596. It starts from here:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-12596?focusedCommentId=14628295&page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel#comment-14628295
--
Best regards,
- Andy
Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet Hein
(via Tom White)
