I would spend more time working on snapshot feature. Let's get enough votes to merge snapshot branch to trunk first. I plan to go over related JIRAs one more time in the next few days.
I agree that snapshot should be off by default in 0.94 Cheers On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 12:49 PM, Jonathan Hsieh <j...@cloudera.com> wrote: > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-7360 discusses some of > this. I actually just closed the issue as won't fix from the two > responses we got on it but if there is consensus we can reopen it. > > As I mentioned on the jira, I can go either way +/-0 -- currently > there is only rpc-related patches that are different between trunk and > 0.94. This does however mean more overhead from the folks committing > code and testing related to this feature (me, matteo, jesse, ted?), > which had me leaning more -0. > > Relatedly, it looks like we've leaned towards having snapshot things > on by default in 0.96/trunk but if we do this in apache 0.94 I'd > suggest keeping it default off. > > Jon. > > On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 10:46 AM, lars hofhansl <la...@apache.org> wrote: > > It turns out that both Cloudera and Hortonworks have plans to backport > this to 0.94 in their respective distributions (I don't think that is a > secret, apologies if it was). > > This makes it a defacto standard, and would probably point towards > porting this to the public 0.94 as well. > > > > Maybe we can wait for both HW and Cloudera to finish the backport and > stabilize and test it and then port it to the "official" Apache > distribution. > > > > > > Thoughts? > > > > > > -- Lars > > > > > > > > ________________________________ > > From: Jonathan Hsieh <j...@cloudera.com> > > To: dev@hbase.apache.org > > Sent: Wednesday, January 9, 2013 11:38 AM > > Subject: Re: Upcoming merge of snapshots branch into trunk. (HBASE-6055 > and HABSE-7290) > > > > On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 at 11:44 PM, Stack <st...@duboce.net> wrote: > >> On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 at 10:07 AM, Jonathan Hsieh <j...@cloudera.com> > wrote: > >>> Aside from asking for reviews, there are a few outstanding questions > we'd > >>> love to get your feedback on: > >>> HBASE-7471 - default configuration so that snapshots are available by > >>> default? > >>> > >> > >> > >> +1 on enabling by default in trunk/0.96 > >> > > > > Ok, unless we hear other wise, we'll move forward on that. > >> > >> > >>> HBASE-7360 - do we backport offline snapshots to the apache hbase 0.94 > >>> line? > >>> > >>> > >> +0 tending toward -1. Patch is large for little benefit: i.e. offline > >> merge (you have to take table offline, right?) > >> > > Lars H hinted at this so I'll close that issues as won't do. > > > >> > >> > >>> So where is the code and jiras? Currently, there are two branches -- an > >>> offline snapshot only branch (HBASE-6055) here ( > >>> https://github.com/jyates/hbase/tree/snapshots aka > >>> https://github.com/jmhsieh/hbase/tree/hbase-6055) and an offline + > online > >>> one (HBASE-7290) here > >>> (https://github.com/jmhsieh/hbase/tree/snapshots). Currently the > >>> difference between the two are 3-4 patches (they are fairly > substantial but > >>> primarily additive). We were being conservative initially and had > hoped > >>> that we could of done an offline merge earlier (and possibly merge > with 94) > >>> and then a second round when the online snapshot was more robust. If > our > >>> testing goes well this week, for trunk I'd lean more towards just > doing one > >>> merge pass with the offline+online branch. > >>> > >>> > >> So, you want us review over in the branches? Or do you have updated > >> patches attached to 6055 and 7290? (Or you want us to wait till there is > >> the later reference mega-patch posted up on rb -- if rb will take it > >> (smile)). > >> > >> > > > > I'll post the mega patch when I have a version merged with trunk. > > Currently I've done a version but it fails on several unit tests. > > > > The individual patches are a good breakdown of the different modules > > that contribute to the snapshot feature -- for now it would probably > > make the most sense to get familiar with that before diving in to all > > the code. > > > >> > >>> 1) just commit the consolidated mega patch to trunk. (every trunk step > >>> should compile, but we lose blame information) > >>> 2) rebase each patch and then a fix up patch at the end (yuck -- may > have > >>> broken intermediate steps, but keeps blame info) > >>> 3) create a branch in svn (we've been in github) and, after we do an > svn > >>> merge of the snapshot branch into trunk. (more work, but each commit in > >>> each branch should compile, keep blame information). > >>> > >>> > >> For #3, when you create a branch, it would be made with what is out on > >> github after github had been brought current w/ trunk? Then, you would > >> merge in the svn branch into trunk? Isn't the commit history only > going to > >> be one level deep? i.e. 'branch made from what was in github?" Or > will it > >> have more than this? > >> > >> St.Ack > > > > I was hoping to bring each of the individual github commits as svn > > branch commits and then use the svn merge to form the top of #3. I > > need to spend some time experimenting with svn to do this. Another > > suggestion in the long run is to move hbase to an apache git repo > > completely -- apparently several of the newer projects like bigtop and > > whirr have moved to git completely. > > > > Jon > > > > > > > > -- > > // Jonathan Hsieh (shay) > > // Software Engineer, Cloudera > > // j...@cloudera.com > > > > -- > // Jonathan Hsieh (shay) > // Software Engineer, Cloudera > // j...@cloudera.com >
