Jean-Marc, I just tried it and am able to hear the recording. Hmmm, not sure what to do here. Any one else able to access the recording?
- Dave On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 7:51 AM, Jean-Marc Spaggiari < [email protected]> wrote: > 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 > >> > > >> > > >
