Hi Dave, I' tried to access the link.I 'm able to load it, but there is no sound. Sound is working if I play any other video, but back to webex, still not sound.
Is it working for you? JM 2013/2/19, Dave Wang <[email protected]>: > Thanks for the summary Deveraj. > > The webex recording for the meeting is at: > > https://cloudera.webex.com/cloudera/ldr.php?AT=pb&SP=MC&rID=120418137&rKey=d058765b798c47c5 > > Please let me know if you cannot access it. > > Regards, > > - Dave > > > On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 5:30 PM, Jean-Marc Spaggiari < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> Awesome! >> >> Thanks a for those notes Devaraj! >> >> Very useful for the unfortunates who did not got the chance to join the >> meeting ... >> Le 19 févr. 2013 20:27, "Devaraj Das" <[email protected]> a écrit : >> >> > - Stabilizing 0.96 / CI >> > -- not running continuously >> > -- Roman: is it a good idea to run IT under Bigtop >> > - the HBase unit tests are good.. >> > - What about HBase as a backend for hive - tests for those >> > - Do we think there is value with the integration with the rest >> > of the hadoop ecosystem >> > -- Jon: What's needed to make this work >> > -- Roman: Collective agreement that we want to solve this >> > -- Stack: We need to run the IT tests from Enis and Sergey running >> > continuously >> > -- Roman: If we all agree that this is something needs to be fixed >> > .. then yes we would talk about mechanics. Bigtop doesn't have >> > expertise in HBase and hence HBase folks would have to debug failures. >> > -- Roman: Bigtop is committed to tests. Less than a dozen tests for >> > hbase currently.. >> > -- We have been running validation around RC time. Find all kinds of >> > issues - sometimes trivial (maybe a config issue), >> > -- Roman can offer CI for trunk but will work for only hadoop-2 line. >> > -- Roman does first line of triage. >> > -- No issues to do with other ecosystem artifacts. Bigtop ensures >> > the right artifacts are in place. >> > -- hadoop-2 is important but not particular about the version of >> > hadoop within 2. For example 2.0.2 >> > -- Gary: Will be good to run security tests >> > -- Roman & Devaraj to talk on how this can be done/implemented >> > >> > On 0.96 branching >> > - Lars: >> > -- We will have three branches to maintain. >> > - Stack: we need to stabilize quickly >> > - Enis: What about 0.95. >> > - Stack: Just do the snapshots thing. Every week, give a snapshot >> > - Enis: we've done a bunch of stuff in RPC.. If we have to break >> > something, we can if it is beta (0.96-beta). >> > - Agreement is there generally ... Debate on the name with snapshot >> > versus 95.0/96.0 >> > -- 0.95 experimental .. 0.96 will be stable >> > -- If we go with 0.95, releasing will be easier as well.. >> > -- 0.95 will not be in production.. >> > -- 0.96 will be off 0.95 branch and not trunk based >> > >> > - How do we go about committing issues.. (issue commit rate is low) >> > -- 0.94 is stable - 2 new commits and 2 new bugs a day >> > -- 0.96 has lots of issues not reviewed >> > -- Break up the patch into multiple smaller pieces to make review >> > easier >> > -- Branching on a big feature was suggested - >> > --- Issues: committer needs to be there >> > Sergey: If the rate of change is high on common code (to the >> > branches) then merging will be tough >> > --- Jon: Refactor should be done in the main branch (since it >> > doesn't add any new funtionality) >> > --- Release often to reduce #backports overall and issues with >> > that.. >> > >> > - Review process .. how to drive a review to closure. Effort goes >> > waste if the review process is not completed. The same reviewer should >> > continue to review the patch .. >> > - Hard to enforce any process >> > - Enis: there should be a summary of the patch and all that .. so that >> > the review process is helped.. Hard to understand the architecture of >> > the patch unless documented >> > - Jon: It should be easy to make a one-to-one correspondence between >> > the description and the patch >> > - The commit should have only the jira# as opposed to pages of >> description >> > >> > - Component owners: is this working. Committers need to be forthcoming >> > with reviews >> > -- Maybe review the modules and add some more if needed. >> > >> > -- Good that we have more contributions coming than we have >> > reviewers, but unless we keep up, we will plateau >> > -- Mail on dev@ list if review doesn't happen >> > >> > - Dev co-ordination: >> > -- How best can we pull together >> > -- Priorities: >> > --- Getting 0.96 out is priority >> > --- Backports to 0.94 will happen .. until 0.96 is stable >> > --- 0.92 release ? Any committer who wants to make a release can do >> > so (maybe with some backports, etc.) >> > --- Backporting can be tough if there are bugs and the bugfix has >> > to be applied to all branches >> > >> > - HBASE-2600 - this requires a change in the client and the server. >> > They have to be changed in lock-step. Its hard to do this .. Jon >> > doesn't want to have the fix for 0.96. So 0.98 might be another >> > singular release. Maybe do a rewrite of the meta after taking a lock >> > on the meta, do a shim layer to handle the backward compat. between >> > 0.96 and 0.98 >> > >> > - What do people want to get into 0.94 >> > -- The biggest thing - Snapshots, mostly new code, about a 3rd of the >> > stuff in 0.94 already >> > -- Compactions improvments - no backport >> > >> > - How devs can better co-ordinate >> > -- Snapshots co-ordination working well >> > -- One page design is useful (makes it readable and all) >> > -- How about handling the stripe compaction - where an idea leads to >> > a bunch of others >> > -- Again write-up should be done >> > >> > - Should we change the description to match the comments >> > -- Two ideas suggested: >> > --- We probably should have the description updated with the >> > "Date: new description" if the issue at hand is updated >> > --- Should we have a summary after a bunch of comments - yes >> > >> > - The face-to-face meetings are useful. We should semd out the minutes >> > of the discussion to the dev list. We probably should have more >> > focused huddles. Discuss but don't decide (decide on the jira)! >> > >> > - Jon: Would people be amenable to merge sooner rather than later on >> > snapshots? Tested and being beaten up. >> > - Stack: Yes >> > >> > - What else goes in in 0.96: >> > -- RPC refactor >> > -- ROOT removal >> > -- Compaction stuff >> > -- Package name mailing list thread - there is now a jira on that. >> > We shouldn't break clients. Package name changes is not worth the >> > trouble. >> > >> > - A bunch of discussions on the RPC with KeyValue/Cells >> > >> > - What do we do about usability >> > -- It'll be nice if we don't need to change configs.. >> > -- Maybe expose more metrics and then allow for online config >> > changes since automatic config is difficult and needs to be battle >> > tested and all. >> > >> > - Benchmarking of the release: >> > -- We should measure the overhead of PB stuff >> > >> >
