Thanks Ted!
On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 4:37 PM, Ted Yu <yuzhih...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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 >> >>>>> >>>>> > > >> >>>>> >>>>> > >> >>>>> >>>>> >> >>>>> >>>> >> >>>>> >>>> >> >>>>> >>> >> >>>>> >> >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>> >> >> >> > >> > >