adoroszlai commented on PR #7326:
URL: https://github.com/apache/ozone/pull/7326#issuecomment-2426679617

   > > > Since `OBJECT_TAG(5)` is not available in 1.4.1, we'd need to backport 
the check using numbers, or could check against `FUTURE_VERSION`.
   > > 
   > > This would fix the compatibility issue, but would disable 
`listStatusLight` for client 1.4.1+ and server 1.4.0+ combination.
   > 
   > Do you mean that we should set the version of LIGHTWEIGHT_LIST_STATUS to 5 
(to be the same as OBJECT_TAG(5)) in the master and ozone-1.4 branches?
   
   Yes, I thought we could make the feature version backportable that way, but 
it has the problem I mentioned:
   
   > > but would disable listStatusLight for client 1.4.1+ and server 1.4.0+ 
combination.
   > 
   > For this issue, user can upgrade the server side to ozone-1.4.1 to fix the 
issue.
   
   OM 1.4.x cannot report it is at `OzoneManagerVersion = 5`: that would fool 
newer clients to believe `OBJECT_TAG(5)` is supported.  So it must keep 
reporting version = 4.  If client only looks at OM version, it cannot 
distinguish between 1.4.0 and 1.4.1+ OM.
   
   So we have two choices:
   
   1. Accept that client uses `listStatus` instead of `listStatusLight` for 
certain versions, despite both client and server having implementation for the 
latter.
   2. Introduce a new way to indicate supported features.
   
   > If we need to backport a new feature to a specific branch
   
   We shouldn't backport features, only bugfixes.  `LIGHTWEIGHT_LIST_STATUS` is 
a special case: feature is already in 1.4.0, only the version increment was 
missed.


-- 
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.

To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]

For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
[email protected]


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]

Reply via email to