Is there a patch available for the tracing work mentioned? I don't think I've seen anything about it.
On Saturday, August 3, 2013, Stack wrote: > On Sat, Jul 27, 2013 at 2:52 PM, Stack <st...@duboce.net <javascript:;>> > wrote: > > > The end of July is upon us. I intend to cut a 0.95.2 next weekend and > > 0.95.2 will be 0.96.0 but for bug fixes and migration polish. No more > > 'features' will be allowed after next weekend. > > > > > > > > I have done some moving around of hbase 0.95.2 issues [1] to reflect what > > the priorities are for this week (to my mind). It is all about polish, > bad > > bugs, unit test failures, and packaging/publishing/build issues. > > > > I'll be working on the blockers this week [2]. A few are in need of > > reviews; e.g. "HBASE-3787 Increment is non-idempotent but client retries > > RPC". Feel free to take over any blockers if you'd like to help out: > e.g. > > "HBASE-7386 Investigate providing some supervisor support for znode > > deletion" > > > > Criticals [3] are mostly just unit test issues that are probably fixed by > > now and another few that are patches in need of test/review: e.g. > > "HBASE-8874 PutCombiner is skipping KeyValues while combining puts of > same > > row during bulkload" and "HBASE-8778 Region assigments scan table > directory > > making them slow for huge tables". > > "HBASE-6127 TestAtomicOperation#testMultiRowMutationMultiThreads > > occasionally fails" is a bad one in need of attention. Again, if up for > > helping out, be our guest. > > > > There are some great patches hanging out in the priority major issues > > section that are patch available that could be committed but for want of > > review: e.g. "HBASE-8369 MapReduce over snapshot files". > > > > Regards the big features that are racing to make the 0.96 cutoff -- > namely > > namespaces, tags, and serialization lib -- as I see it, Francis needs > > reviews if namespaces are to make it, tags ditto, and the serialization > > libs are nice-to-have auxillaries that can come in at any time. If not > > done by the end of this week, then as I see it, these features do not > make > > the cut. > > > > Unit tests are mostly passing. The problematics are being worked on > (e.g. > > JD is on the replication set -- it likely a real problem rather than a > > flakey test). > > > > How's the above sound? > > St.Ack > > > > P.S. It is late but if folks want to meet this week to hack in patches > > together, just say. I could organize an afternoon or day if you all > think > > it would be a good idea. > > > > 1. > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE/fixforversion/12320040#selectedTab=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.project%3Aversion-issues-panel > > 2. > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=project%20%3D%20HBASE%20AND%20fixVersion%20%3D%20%220.95.2%22%20AND%20resolution%20%3D%20Unresolved%20AND%20priority%20%3D%20Blocker%20ORDER%20BY%20key%20DESC > > 3. > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=project%20%3D%20HBASE%20AND%20fixVersion%20%3D%20%220.95.2%22%20AND%20resolution%20%3D%20Unresolved%20AND%20priority%20%3D%20Critical%20ORDER%20BY%20key%20DESC > > > > > > > UPDATE: > > I was to cut 0.95.2 this weekend. I am pushing out the cut-date to Weds or > so of next week. The gating factor is namespaces. It needs a few more > days of patch cycling. I'll cut 0.95.2 after it goes in. It'll be the > last feature on the 0.95/0.96 branch. Thereafter, only bug fixes, > migration cleanup, and doc additions will be allowed (0.96.0RC will follow > soon after the 0.95.2 developer release goes out). > > It looks like the serialization ilb will make the cut, API+Ordering; Nick > has signed-on some consumers it seems. > > On KV tags, we have an outstanding -1 but -1s can change; lets see what the > new posted patch looks like. > > Elliott has fancy-pants tracing that he should be able to get in before > 0.95.2. > > On the dodgy-looking outstanding blockers: > > "HBASE-3787 Increment is non-idempotent but client retries RPC" still needs > reviews. It is a difficult problem well-researched by our Sergey; perhaps > this does not make it? > > On "HBASE-7386 Investigate providing some supervisor support for znode > deletion" we could doc. the "ugly" wrapper/watcher process with why it > exists and suggest it should be supervise instead (with a template) but > this could be post release? > > Criticals seem to be all in good hands wanting a bit of testing or a last > review. Lets get them in. > > Reviewing the major issues, I do not see anything we should hold up the > release; please speak up if you think different (How about HBASE-7667, the > stripe compaction work or the fsync work in HBASE-5954?. > > On unit tests, we are mostly passing now as reported a few days ago. There > are a few flakies that would be sweet to purge; e.g: > > HBASE-7980 TestZKInterProcessReadWriteLock fails occasionally in QA test > run > HBASE-9023 TestIOFencing.testFencingAroundCompactionAfterWALSync > > TestDistributedLogSplitting can go 'invisibile' on occasion; i.e. tests > fail it is only one absent from list of completed tests. > > But unit tests are looking good on 0.95 and trunk: > https://builds.apache.org/view/H-L/view/HBase/ > > Your RM, > St.Ack > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 1:14 PM, Stack <st...@duboce.net> wrote: > > > >> I am shooting for end of July for 0.96 being 'complete'. I would like > >> to make a 0.96 release in August. We have some criticals outstanding > but I > >> think we could ship even if these are not fixed in time (excepting > >> migration polish and of course remaining build fixes). See [1.] for the > >> current list of issues. Please re-prioritize issues as you see fit (or > >> better, move issues out of 0.95.2 if you do not think they will be done > in > >> time). > >> > >> What to do with namespaces -- the last 0.96 'feature' -- given the above > >> timeline? Currently it is a massive patch out on a branch. It is still > >> not done, in want of review, and the author is going on holidays for a > few > >> weeks soon. My thinking as of now, going by the rate of change over the > >> last few weeks and estimating what is yet to be done, is that namespaces > >> will not make it. I am willing to be convinced otherwise but that is > how > >> it looks to me currently. > >> > >> I am going to start just disabling flakey unit tests in 0.95 from here > on > >> out. When folks get the itch, they can fix at leisure first on trunk > and > >> then over in 0.95. > >> > >> What else? > >> > >> Thanks, > >> St.Ack > >> > >> 1. > >> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE/fixforversion/12320040#selectedTab=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.project%3Aversion-issues-panel > >> > >> > >> > >> On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 8:45 PM, Stack <st...@duboce.net> wrote: > >> > >>> (Changed the subject) > >>> > >>> On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 4:04 PM, Nick Dimiduk <ndimi...@gmail.com > >wrote: > >>> > >>>> I want to see initial data type APIs ship out with 0.95.2. A patch for > >>>> ordered byte serialization is up (HBASE-8201) and is nearing > >>>> steady-state. > >>>> However, sershe is the only person who's left feedback. I just posted > an > >>>> early patch for the data type API itself (HBASE-8693). It should get > >>>> some > >>>> eyes from all manor of interested parties, but I'll settle for folk > from > >>>> Phoenix for now. > >>>> > >>>> > >>> It would be cool if Phoenix and Kiji fellows and any one else > interested > >>> would weigh in and take a look see. > >>> > >>> This does not strike me as something we should hold up the release for > >>> though. It looks like something that could go in at any time? > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>>> Should these tasks be escalated to criticals in order to grab > attention? > >>>> > >>>> > >>> I don't think that works going by past experience (and I don't think > >>> this a blocker on 0.96) > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>>> Additional comments inline. > >>>> > >>>> > >>> ... > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>>> Namespaces is the long pole and progress seems slow. Do we hold up > the > >>>> > release for them? How can we hurry this effort along? Swat team > >>>> descends > >>>> > on Y!? > >>>> > > >>>> > >>>> It would be a shame to not get a decision on this in for 0.96. > >>>> > >>>> > >>> Agree. We need to get 0.96 out though. It has been too long. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>>> + Is anyone testing? Integration tests fail on ec2 build from time > to > >>>> time > >>>> > [2]. Our Elliott dug in on one of the failures a few days back and > >>>> found > >>>> > legit issue w/ no retry on admin tasks (I heart hbase-it tests). > Our > -- Best regards, - Andy Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet Hein (via Tom White)
