As requested, I have attached a combined patch to the umbrella JIRA <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-1015> and submitted it to jenkins.
Would be great if someone could take a look and provide feedback. Regards, aditya... On Wed, Jul 9, 2014 at 7:05 PM, Aditya <adityakish...@gmail.com> wrote: > I was hoping to get some initial comments before attaching patches for the > build boat. > > I have broken the entire code into 5 patch sets, layered in a sequnce, > each focusing on a particular area (public headers/JNI > implementation/Examples+unit test, etc) for the ease of review. > > https://reviews.apache.org/r/23175/ > https://reviews.apache.org/r/23176/ > https://reviews.apache.org/r/23177/ > https://reviews.apache.org/r/23178/ > https://reviews.apache.org/r/23179/ > > These are also available as a sequence of patches as the pull request > <https://github.com/apache/hbase/pull/1>. > > Only the last patch hooks everything to the HBase build process > (optionally) and hence I was thinking of squashing these separate patches > into a single patch to be submitted for build. > > > On Wed, Jul 9, 2014 at 11:32 AM, Nick Dimiduk <ndimi...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> This ticket has only open subtasks, ie nothing in 'patch available'. I >> assume you mean HBASE-10168. We'll see about getting you some reviews, but >> you should also go about formatting the patch for buildbot. Also, since >> your 3 reviews are individually 100+k, you should consider breaking them >> into three separate tickets. >> >> my 2¢ >> -n >> >> >> On Mon, Jul 7, 2014 at 12:01 PM, Aditya <adityakish...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> Sorry about that. >>> >>> Here is the umbrella JIRA >>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-1015 >>> >>> >>> On Mon, Jul 7, 2014 at 10:05 AM, Nick Dimiduk <ndimi...@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Would you mind including the JIRA numbers along with the request? >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> Nick >>>> >>>> >>>> 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 >>>>> > > >>>>> > >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >> >
