Is it HBASE-9121 ? 2013/8/3 Andrew Purtell <apurt...@apache.org>
> 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) >
