Agreed that the open tasks are not essential before considering a backport for (near term) release. We have often released backported features from the main branch in new minors with documentation -- release notes and updates to the online book, typically -- describing them as "experimental", until something causes the community to reconsider that designation. I assume this would happen in this case too?
On Mon, Oct 3, 2022 at 11:03 AM Bryan Beaudreault <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi again all, > > We have a relatively full featured backup solution in master branch. It > looks like the original development had intended to be included in branch-2 > [1], but did not make the deadline for 2.0.0 release and was removed [2]. > Later the idea of backporting was forgotten, potentially with some of the > main devs moving onto other projects. > > In the interim, one company, Flipkart (Mallikarjun works there), took it > upon themselves to backport the feature to their own fork. They've been > running that backport in production for some time now. Mallikarjun has been > trying to contribute some improvements, but has lacked committer support. > > At my company, we're considering redesigning our backup/restore solution > which has been relatively static since originally built back in 2014 and is > showing its age. While investigating options, I reached out to Mallikarjun > and he was graciously willing to provide a backport PR [3]. The backport > applied cleanly with small conflicts in one file. > > There were a few blockers listed in the original thread in [1] and from > what I can tell, they are all done. There is a remaining "Phase 4" umbrella > [4] with all of the issues looking like nice-to-haves. Most could just be > tackled based on community interest. > > I think a big reason why there is no committer support and relatively > little uptake on this feature is because it has for years been stuck on > master, when pretty much everyone runs a 2.x release. So no one is using it > or has the ability to test it out, outside flipkart who backported it > themselves. > > We are currently evaluating the backport PR in our own fork to see if the > solution as-is can be a good foundation for what we're trying to > accomplish. If the evaluation works out and we decide to move forward, I'd > like to work with Mallikarjun to get his backport committed. > > Before doing that, I wanted to check if any other devs have concerns about > this initiative given the size of the patch and history of the project. Let > me know what you think. > > [1] https://lists.apache.org/thread/k9dx12rj58r1qbrxqb0s1306lhhg3grn > [2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-19407 > [3] https://github.com/apache/hbase/pull/4770 > [4] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-17362 > -- Best regards, Andrew Unrest, ignorance distilled, nihilistic imbeciles - It's what we’ve earned Welcome, apocalypse, what’s taken you so long? Bring us the fitting end that we’ve been counting on - A23, Welcome, Apocalypse
