You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@hbase.apache.org by Ishan Chhabra <ic...@rocketfuel.com> on 2014/03/24 05:32:31 UTC
Regressions on upgrading from 0.94 to 0.96
When looking at HBASE-8063<https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-8063>,
I noticed that it was backported to 0.94
(HBASE-8198<https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-8198>)
but not to 0.96. I don't know if this was intentional or if it was just
missed. Missing this patch could impact performance on certain kinds of
queries.
Are there any other known features/fixes that did not get ported to 0.96
but got ported to 0.94?
--
*Ishan Chhabra *| Rocket Scientist | RocketFuel Inc.
Re: Regressions on upgrading from 0.94 to 0.96
Posted by Stack <st...@duboce.net>.
On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 11:44 AM, lars hofhansl <la...@apache.org> wrote:
> Yeah. Sorry. That's not good. I usually make sure that does not happen,
> but I missed that one.
>
> I don't know what to do about issues like this. The RM's can't possibly
> watch all issues. Another area where I find this a lot is with bug fixes
> that are committed to 0.96 or 0.98 and later, but the committer forgets
> about 0.94. I try to catch all these things, but some will slip.
>
> So here's a renewed call to all committers (including myself):
> - There should never be a feature gap (i.e. a feature in 0.94, not in
> 0.96, but then again 0.98). All committers should check for that.
> - Bugfixes should always be considered as to whether they'd useful for
> earlier releases. Unless the area of code is new the likely answer is yes.
>
Amen.
St.Ack
Re: Regressions on upgrading from 0.94 to 0.96
Posted by Andrew Purtell <ap...@apache.org>.
I filed HBASE-10819
On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 11:44 AM, lars hofhansl <la...@apache.org> wrote:
> Yeah. Sorry. That's not good. I usually make sure that does not happen,
> but I missed that one.
>
> I don't know what to do about issues like this. The RM's can't possibly
> watch all issues. Another area where I find this a lot is with bug fixes
> that are committed to 0.96 or 0.98 and later, but the committer forgets
> about 0.94. I try to catch all these things, but some will slip.
>
> So here's a renewed call to all committers (including myself):
> - There should never be a feature gap (i.e. a feature in 0.94, not in
> 0.96, but then again 0.98). All committers should check for that.
> - Bugfixes should always be considered as to whether they'd useful for
> earlier releases. Unless the area of code is new the likely answer is yes.
>
> -- Lars
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Stack <st...@duboce.net>
> To: HBase Dev List <de...@hbase.apache.org>
> Sent: Monday, March 24, 2014 11:12 AM
> Subject: Re: Regressions on upgrading from 0.94 to 0.96
>
>
> On Sun, Mar 23, 2014 at 9:32 PM, Ishan Chhabra <ichhabra@rocketfuel.com
> >wrote:
>
> > When looking at HBASE-8063<
> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-8063>,
> > I noticed that it was backported to 0.94
> > (HBASE-8198<https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-8198>)
> > but not to 0.96. I don't know if this was intentional or if it was just
> > missed. Missing this patch could impact performance on certain kinds of
> > queries.
> >
>
>
> We try to avoid having older versions have features that are then missing
> from later versions. The commit to 0.94 is done w/o comment/justification
> in the issue. Maybe a discussion was held elsewhere and not cited.
>
>
>
>
> >
> > Are there any other known features/fixes that did not get ported to 0.96
> > but got ported to 0.94?
> >
>
> Hopefully none Ishan. It is a but in our process if there is.
> St.Ack
--
Best regards,
- Andy
Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet Hein
(via Tom White)
Re: Regressions on upgrading from 0.94 to 0.96
Posted by lars hofhansl <la...@apache.org>.
Yeah. Sorry. That's not good. I usually make sure that does not happen, but I missed that one.
I don't know what to do about issues like this. The RM's can't possibly watch all issues. Another area where I find this a lot is with bug fixes that are committed to 0.96 or 0.98 and later, but the committer forgets about 0.94. I try to catch all these things, but some will slip.
So here's a renewed call to all committers (including myself):
- There should never be a feature gap (i.e. a feature in 0.94, not in 0.96, but then again 0.98). All committers should check for that.
- Bugfixes should always be considered as to whether they'd useful for earlier releases. Unless the area of code is new the likely answer is yes.
-- Lars
________________________________
From: Stack <st...@duboce.net>
To: HBase Dev List <de...@hbase.apache.org>
Sent: Monday, March 24, 2014 11:12 AM
Subject: Re: Regressions on upgrading from 0.94 to 0.96
On Sun, Mar 23, 2014 at 9:32 PM, Ishan Chhabra <ic...@rocketfuel.com>wrote:
> When looking at HBASE-8063<
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-8063>,
> I noticed that it was backported to 0.94
> (HBASE-8198<https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-8198>)
> but not to 0.96. I don't know if this was intentional or if it was just
> missed. Missing this patch could impact performance on certain kinds of
> queries.
>
We try to avoid having older versions have features that are then missing
from later versions. The commit to 0.94 is done w/o comment/justification
in the issue. Maybe a discussion was held elsewhere and not cited.
>
> Are there any other known features/fixes that did not get ported to 0.96
> but got ported to 0.94?
>
Hopefully none Ishan. It is a but in our process if there is.
St.Ack
Re: Regressions on upgrading from 0.94 to 0.96
Posted by Stack <st...@duboce.net>.
On Sun, Mar 23, 2014 at 9:32 PM, Ishan Chhabra <ic...@rocketfuel.com>wrote:
> When looking at HBASE-8063<
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-8063>,
> I noticed that it was backported to 0.94
> (HBASE-8198<https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-8198>)
> but not to 0.96. I don't know if this was intentional or if it was just
> missed. Missing this patch could impact performance on certain kinds of
> queries.
>
We try to avoid having older versions have features that are then missing
from later versions. The commit to 0.94 is done w/o comment/justification
in the issue. Maybe a discussion was held elsewhere and not cited.
>
> Are there any other known features/fixes that did not get ported to 0.96
> but got ported to 0.94?
>
Hopefully none Ishan. It is a but in our process if there is.
St.Ack