I'm going to challenge the validity of that veto, because "solving the underlying issue of race conditions in property updates" is not the intended goal of the patch, or any stated side-effect. It also doesn't preclude the pursuit of a solution for that issue. Comments about race conditions for property updates was a related topic brought up in the JIRA comments thread, not in the patch or the issue description. Rather, this patch solves a very different problem: avoiding the need to alter properties post-creation. This is an API improvement and helps in some cases where properties are utilized immediately after creation, or anywhere where somebody might want to create a table in fewer API calls.
In accordance with our bylaws, another committer must now verify the validity of your veto. -- Christopher L Tubbs II http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 1:10 PM, Sean Busbey <bus...@cloudera.com> wrote: > -1 > > This change alters our public API while not solving the underlying issue of > race conditions in property updates. > > On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 11:14 AM, Christopher <ctubb...@apache.org> wrote: > > > Committers, this is a consensus vote on whether or not to include Jenna's > > patch for ACCUMULO-3176 to the 1.7.0-SNAPSHOT (master) branch. > > > > This patch improves the table creation API with the introduction of a > > NewTableConfiguration object (similar to the pattern for > > BatchWriterConfig), which allows us to be flexible on improving table > > creation options in the future without creating many overloaded methods > (as > > the table creation API has been plagued by in the past). The main goal of > > the patch is to allow table properties to be set on a table at the time > of > > creation, before any tablets are assigned, but it also lays the > foundation > > for future table creation improvements. Creating initial table properties > > was already present in the RPC calls, but not exposed in the API. This > can > > support a number of use cases. > > > > Since an objection was raised by Sean Busbey (and a veto expected), I've > > initiated this vote in lieu of applying the patch under lazy consensus so > > that any veto votes can be justified and addressed here. > > > > Note: there are a few bugs in the Mock implementation of this that I've > > fixed, as well as some minor deprecation warnings and javadoc > improvements > > I'm adding, please apply your vote under the assumption that those will > be > > fixed before it will be applied. > > > > Please vote in accordance with the bylaws for consensus voting. > > My vote is +1. > > > > Thanks. > > > > -- > > Christopher L Tubbs II > > http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii > > > > > > -- > Sean >
