I think it is fair to say for both C API and transaction API that it should be ok to include them if they are ready before the time to cut the 1.0 RC. If not, I do not want to hold the release waiting for those.
Enis On Mon, Jul 7, 2014 at 10:50 AM, Andrew Purtell <andrew.purt...@gmail.com> wrote: > And by definition of that being a proposed design, there is no > implementation to track (yet). There being no implementation, it's hard to > see how it makes a 1.0 happening "soon". > > Don't misunderstand me to be opposed to the idea or feature, far from it. > I don't think Ted did anyone a service bringing it up in the context of > 1.0. Already we are on some kind of detour from discussing things where > there are patches available. > > > > On Jul 7, 2014, at 10:43 AM, Mikhail Antonov <olorinb...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > I thought the scope of HBASE-11447 is to review and refine proposed > design, > > not to track the implementation of the feature? > > > > -Mikhail > > > > > > 2014-07-07 10:40 GMT-07:00 Andrew Purtell <andrew.purt...@gmail.com>: > > > >> That is not a realistic proposal for 1.0 as far as I can see. There is > >> only a tentative design spec on that issue. I assume we are sticking > with > >> Enis' earlier stated intent to get 1.0 out "soon". > >> > >> > >>> On Jul 7, 2014, at 10:30 AM, Ted Yu <yuzhih...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>> > >>> The following is another candidate for 1.0.0 release > >>> > >>> HBASE-11447 Proposal for a generic transaction API for HBase > >>> > >>> Cheers > >>> > >>> > >>>> On Mon, Jul 7, 2014 at 9:52 AM, Aditya <adityakish...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >>>> > >>>> Do we want to have the C APIs part of 1.0.0 release. I had posted few > >>>> patches and a set of review request sometime last week. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>> On Fri, Jul 4, 2014 at 1:21 AM, Enis Söztutar <enis....@gmail.com> > >> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 4:41 PM, Mikhail Antonov < > olorinb...@gmail.com> > >>>>> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>>> Moved ZK watcher & listener subtask out of scope HBASE-10909. Enis - > >>>> with > >>>>>> that, I guess HBASE-10909 can be marked in branch-1? > >>>>> > >>>>> Sounds good. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> HBASE-11464 - this is the jira where I'll capture tasks to abstract > >>>> hbase > >>>>>> client from ZK (mostly it would be post-1.0 work). > >>>>> > >>>>> Not sure whether we can make it fully backwards compatible with 1.0 > >>>>> clients. I guess we will see when the patches are done. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Thanks, > >>>>>> Mikhail > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> 2014-07-03 12:52 GMT-07:00 Stack <st...@duboce.net>: > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 12:25 PM, Mikhail Antonov < > >>>> olorinb...@gmail.com > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Guys, > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> getting back to ZK abstraction work w.r.t. release 1.0 and > >>>>> thereafter, > >>>>>>> some > >>>>>>>> status update. So as we're getting closer to complete HBASE-10909, > >>>> it > >>>>>>> looks > >>>>>>>> like the steps may be like this: > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> - there are 2 subtasks out there not closed yet, one of which is > >>>>> about > >>>>>>> log > >>>>>>>> splitting (and Sergey S has submitted a patch for review), another > >>>> is > >>>>>>>> abstraction of ZK watcher (this is what I've been working on in > the > >>>>>>>> background; but after sketching the patch it seems like without > >>>> being > >>>>>>> able > >>>>>>>> to modify the control flows and some changes in the module > >>>> structure, > >>>>>>> it'd > >>>>>>>> be a lot of scaffolding code not really simplifying current code). > >>>> So > >>>>>> I'd > >>>>>>>> propose to descope abstraction of ZK watcher jira (HBASE-11073), > >>>>>> namely: > >>>>>>>> convert it to top-level JIRA and continue to work on it > separately; > >>>>>>> rename > >>>>>>>> HBASE-10909 to "ZK abstraction: phase 1", and mark it as closed as > >>>>> soon > >>>>>>> as > >>>>>>>> log splitting jira is completed. This way HBASE-10909 fits to > >>>>> branch-1. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Sounds good to me. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> - secondly, in the discussion to the CatalogTracker patch, we > >>>>> started > >>>>>>>> talking about modifying client to not know about ZK, but rather > >>>> keep > >>>>>> the > >>>>>>>> location of current masters and talk to them using RPC calls. This > >>>>> work > >>>>>>> can > >>>>>>>> not go into branch-1, as it involves invasive changes in client > >>>>>> including > >>>>>>>> new RPC. As I understand the branching schema now, those changes > >>>> can > >>>>> go > >>>>>>> to > >>>>>>>> master branch, we just don't merge them to branch-1, and depending > >>>> on > >>>>>>> their > >>>>>>>> completeness we can pull them to 1.1 release or so. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> You have it right Mikhail. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> St.Ack > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> -- > >>>>>> Thanks, > >>>>>> Michael Antonov > > > > > > > > -- > > Thanks, > > Michael Antonov >
