On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 1:28 PM, Suresh Srinivas <[email protected]> wrote: > Sorry for the late reply... > > My concern is not about creating a branch. Using a branch is some thing > we have been doing for a long time for feature development and it is > effective. Infact I am eager for branch for HA to be created, to start > submitting the patches I am currently working on. > > Here are some of my concerns: > Commit-then-review: > I have same concerns expressed by Jakob, about commit and review. My > preference is to review before commit. Reviewing incremental changes is much > more effective than reviewing one mega patch during merge of a branch.
In CTR you still review individual changes, it just means you can do the review after the change was committed (and you address review feedback in a follow-on patch). I'm actually happy to do RTC, I prefer that as well. As long as each change is individually reviewed I'm fine either way. > From what I also know, HDFS-2064 HA is being planned for release 0.22. That's up to the 0.22 RM. It's not a blocker and it's unclear if we'll have a 0.22 release. > At an early glance, this seems to be closely tied to Backup node and not > generic enough (will post comments to jira). Given that this is added to > 0.22, > how does that impact the current HA plans and backward compatibility > requirements? I don't think the 1632 work needs to gate 2064, and vice versa. > Release 0.23: > Initial plan was to make HA part of post 0.23 (as discussed in contributors > meetup). It would be good to work in that direction and commit changes to > HDFS-1623 branch instead of making changes in the trunk, to ensure stability > of the trunk. HADOOP-7380 went into trunk. It would be better for such > changes > to go into HDFS-1623 branch. We should merge this branch post 0.23 into > trunk. Per the summit and previous discussion the current plan is still to get HA into a minor release of 0.23 right? Thanks, Eli
