I started with https://reviews.apache.org/r/23175/
Will continue reviewing this week. On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 1:40 PM, Aditya <adityakish...@gmail.com> wrote: > Did anyone get a chance to take a look at the patches? > > Regards, > aditya... > > > On Sun, Jul 20, 2014 at 8:37 PM, Aditya <adityakish...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > The wrapper jar is part of the first patch, which is in git mailbox patch > > format. > > > > > > On Sat, Jul 19, 2014 at 2:03 AM, Ted Yu <yuzhih...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> You may want to attach the wrapper jar to the JIRA directly. > >> > >> Cheers > >> > >> On Jul 19, 2014, at 1:52 AM, Aditya <adityakish...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > >> Looks like the regular patch command skips any binary included in > patches. > >> > >> > >> On Sat, Jul 19, 2014 at 1:37 AM, Aditya <adityakish...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> > >>> Thanks for taking a look Ted! > >>> > >>> Looks like the second patch created with "git diff" excluded the Gradle > >>> wrapper JAR from the patch. > >>> > >>> I would generate a new one which includes this this jar. In the > >>> meantime, you should be able to use the first patch attached to the > JIRA > >>> which is in git-am format and that would let you build. > >>> > >>> > >>> On Fri, Jul 18, 2014 at 3:40 PM, Ted Yu <yuzhih...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>> > >>>> Nice work, Aditya. > >>>> > >>>> Looks like the hbase-native-client profile requires gradle ? > >>>> > >>>> [exec] Error: Could not find or load main class > >>>> org.gradle.wrapper.GradleWrapperMain > >>>> > >>>> Will take a look at your patch. > >>>> > >>>> Cheers > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> On Fri, Jul 18, 2014 at 3:08 PM, Aditya <adityakish...@gmail.com> > >>>> wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> 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 > >>>>> >>>>> > > > >>>>> >>>>> > > >>>>> >>>>> > >>>>> >>>> > >>>>> >>>> > >>>>> >>> > >>>>> >> > >>>>> > > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>> > >> > > >
