Hey, Yeah, was busy with something else (HBASE-10070 subtasks) for the last couple of weeks. I intend to get back to 0.99 real soon.
Any help would be awesome. I'll call out for an RC next week. Enis On Fri, Aug 22, 2014 at 1:47 PM, Stack <st...@duboce.net> wrote: > How we looking for a 0.99.0? > > I can go review of outstanding issue list np Enis, just say, but you > probably have a notion on where we are already. > > Grand, > St.Ack > > > On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 2:35 AM, Aditya <adityakish...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > 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 > > >> >>>>> >>>>> > > > > >> >>>>> >>>>> > > > >> >>>>> >>>>> > > >> >>>>> >>>> > > >> >>>>> >>>> > > >> >>>>> >>> > > >> >>>>> >> > > >> >>>>> > > > >> >>>>> > > >> >>>> > > >> >>>> > > >> >>> > > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >