__
From: Du, Jingcheng
Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2016 9:55 PM
To: dev@hbase.apache.org
Subject: RE: [DISCUSS] Criteria for including MOB feature backport in branch-1
Sorry for the late chime in and thank you all for the discussion.
I agree with Jon's suggestion, to make a new branch for MO
, and get ready to fix the coming up
failures. Thanks.
Regards,
Jingcheng
-Original Message-
From: Ted Yu [mailto:yuzhih...@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, March 4, 2016 9:53 AM
To: dev@hbase.apache.org
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Criteria for including MOB feature backport in branch-1
Good ques
Good questions, Enis.
If my bandwidth permits, I am planning to collect performance statistics
using ycsb against cluster with and without MOB feature enabled.
Cheers
On Thu, Mar 3, 2016 at 3:49 PM, Enis Söztutar wrote:
> Regardless of the backport, did we do the same regression analysis for t
Regardless of the backport, did we do the same regression analysis for the
master branch merge at the time of the merge? Like make sure that the
latencies and stability of non-mob is affected or not. Sorry, I was not
following the merge vote closely.
The reason I am asking is that although we can
Just to be clear, I did not actually oppose a backport of MOB. Although - I
have to say am sympathetic to Elliott's position that there's a project
management reason not to. My insistence here is "merely" for this change in
particular a backport to the branch we are making production releases from
In the middle of writing response to this thread, I saw subsequent comments
from Andrew, Jon and Elliott.
In light of opposition from the community w.r.t. backporting MOB feature, I
think it suffices to say that this wouldn't be done now.
Thanks everyone for chiming in.
On Thu, Mar 3, 2016 at 2:
I just don't see a why we would back port. We're going to release a 2.0
when things are ready. It will be a major feature release. MOB is a major
feature. Without compelling reason backporting to branch-1 seems like an
end run around what sem ver is supposed to mean (not the api guarantees,
the act
On Thu, Mar 3, 2016 at 1:01 PM, Stack wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 3, 2016 at 9:02 AM, Ted Yu wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> > As requested by Sean Busbey, I am starting a new thread w.r.t.
> backporting
> > MOB feature to branch-1.
> >
> This is to solicit discussion on the criteria for including MOB feature
> > b
In addition to Stack's points those of us running HBase in production will need
assurance in the form of data collected from a plausible test environment that
the MOB backport does not affect function, stability, or performance for anyone
who doesn't want it. Furthermore some affirmative demonst
On Thu, Mar 3, 2016 at 9:02 AM, Ted Yu wrote:
> Hi,
> As requested by Sean Busbey, I am starting a new thread w.r.t. backporting
> MOB feature to branch-1.
>
This is to solicit discussion on the criteria for including MOB feature
> backport in branch-1.
>
> I can think of the following:
> 1. whet
Hi,
As requested by Sean Busbey, I am starting a new thread w.r.t. backporting
MOB feature to branch-1.
This is to solicit discussion on the criteria for including MOB feature
backport in branch-1.
I can think of the following:
1. whether there is customer interest
There is.
See Jonathan's respo
11 matches
Mail list logo
