The last time MOB on branch-1 came up, folks were concerned that it wasn't stable enough in master yet. Is that still the case?
Can we get a [DISCUSS] flagged thread to see what, if anything, folks would like to see gate inclusion in branch-1? On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 7:31 PM, Jonathan Hsieh <j...@cloudera.com> wrote: > +1 to 1.2 being feature complete corrently. There has already been a > release candidate and folks are burning down the blockers currently to prep > for the next RC. > > I like the idea of mob and sparkonhbase for 1.3. I'm more comfortable with > sparkonhbase -- it is a new module and thus not as invasive. > > Jon. > > On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 4:55 PM, Andrew Purtell <andrew.purt...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> Pretty sure Sean expressed 1.2 is feature complete and I'd support that. >> Can we wait for 1.3 for MOB ? Can look at Spark connector then too. >> >> > On Jan 19, 2016, at 4:52 PM, Ted Yu <yuzhih...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > >> > Looks like 1.2.0 RC is in near future. >> > >> > I wonder if it is time to revive this thread (due to customer interest). >> > >> > As far as I can tell, the Mob related tests have been passing in the >> recent >> > past. >> > >> > Thanks >> > >> >> On Wed, Oct 28, 2015 at 2:07 PM, Andrew Purtell <apurt...@apache.org> >> wrote: >> >> >> >> I haven't heard an user answer in the affirmative to wanting it. >> >> >> >> I'll volunteer to RM 1.3, whenever we need it. Premature to have that >> >> discussion without 1.2 even out the door yet, though. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Wed, Oct 28, 2015 at 1:01 PM, Stephen Jiang <syuanjiang...@gmail.com >> > >> >> wrote: >> >> >> >>> Actually, it is actively changing in master branch on MOB feature made >> me >> >>> think about: if we ever want to port MOB feature to branch-1, now is a >> >> good >> >>> time. We can commit changes in both branches; otherwise, we probably >> >> would >> >>> miss some commits when we port MOB to branch-1 in a late time. >> >>> >> >>> I am more thinking about 1.3 release (certainly not 1.2), which we >> still >> >>> have some time to stabilize and allow interesting party to play with >> the >> >>> feature and give feedback. >> >>> >> >>> Thanks >> >>> Stephen >> >>> >> >>> PS. given the features we discussed in 2.0.0 in the last community >> >> meeting, >> >>> I think it would not release earlier than 1.3 :-), unless we >> >> intentionally >> >>> not find a release manager for 1.3. >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>>> On Wed, Oct 28, 2015 at 9:09 AM, Sean Busbey <bus...@cloudera.com> >> >>> wrote: >> >>> >> >>>> It's practically November. Matteo, are you up for a thread on target >> >>>> dates for 2.0.0 to start RCs? >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> On Wed, Oct 28, 2015 at 11:02 AM, Elliott Clark <ecl...@apache.org> >> >>> wrote: >> >>>>> I feel the same lets keep branch-1 stable, and work towards a faster >> >>>> 2.0.0. >> >>>>> >> >>>>>> On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 4:52 PM, Stack <st...@duboce.net> wrote: >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> IMO, MOB is still not settled in Master. It has a bunch of flakey >> >>> tests >> >>>>>> that are getting fixed by Jingcheng or I've disabled them till >> >> someone >> >>>> has >> >>>>>> time to look at them. There is also a load of duplicated code that >> >> is >> >>>> being >> >>>>>> cleaned up (Matteo). >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> Its not ready to go back to branch-1 IMO. >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> Are there users who'd like it backported? >> >>>>>> St.Ack >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 10:55 AM, Stephen Jiang < >> >>>> syuanjiang...@gmail.com> >> >>>>>> wrote: >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>>> Hello, guys, the MOB is in master branch. I saw bug fixes >> >> happening >> >>>> in >> >>>>>>> master branch. >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> I just wonder whether there is a plan to put MOB in branch-1. I >> >> am >> >>>>>> afraid >> >>>>>>> if we don't do it now, it would be harder in the future to back >> >> port >> >>>> if >> >>>>>> we >> >>>>>>> decide to do it in a late time. >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> Thanks >> >>>>>>> Stephen >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 1:15 PM, Andrew Purtell < >> >>> apurt...@apache.org> >> >>>>>>> wrote: >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> Thanks Jon. >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> When I'm back in the office I'll check out master and have a >> >> look >> >>>> into >> >>>>>>> any >> >>>>>>>> locally repeatable test failures. Anyway in my opinion at this >> >>>> point it >> >>>>>>>> would make the most sense for us to keep the MOB changes in on >> >>>> master >> >>>>>> and >> >>>>>>>> deal with any fallout in follow on issues. I think all who voted >> >>> +1 >> >>>> for >> >>>>>>>> this change were aware that large changes like this can have a >> >>>>>>> temporarily >> >>>>>>>> destabilizing effect. As long as the MOB devs are around to help >> >>>> clean >> >>>>>>> up, >> >>>>>>>> we should be good! >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 8:09 PM, Jonathan Hsieh < >> >> j...@cloudera.com >> >>>> >> >>>>>>> wrote: >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> I had two clean full builds/unit test on my internal setup and >> >>> the >> >>>>>>> latest >> >>>>>>>>> build went back to ~4325 total tests and failures on Procedure >> >>>> relate >> >>>>>>>> tests >> >>>>>>>>> cases. >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> I don't think mob is responsible for these failures. >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> Jon. >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 4:32 PM, Jonathan Hsieh < >> >>> j...@cloudera.com >> >>>>> >> >>>>>>>> wrote: >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>> Although the the precommit buiid passed, and the compilation >> >>> and >> >>>>>> mob >> >>>>>>>>>> testing I ran after before the merge was commited passed, It >> >>>> looks >> >>>>>>> like >> >>>>>>>>>> the first full build after the merge [1] failed. It looked >> >>> like >> >>>>>>>>>> something hung along the way, and that most of the previous >> >>>> builds >> >>>>>>> had >> >>>>>>>>>> failed for various reasons. :( >> >>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>> I kicked it off again have it do another try. If it is mob >> >>>> related >> >>>>>>>> we'll >> >>>>>>>>>> take hunt it down and take care of it. >> >>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>> Jon. >> >>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>> [1] https://builds.apache.org/job/HBase-TRUNK/6672/ >> >>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 1:16 PM, Jonathan Hsieh < >> >>>> j...@cloudera.com> >> >>>>>>>>> wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>> I've merged the code in to master. Thanks for all the hard >> >>>> work >> >>>>>>>>>>> Jingcheng and thanks to all who have been involved with >> >>>> reviews, >> >>>>>>>>>>> discussion, and voting! >> >>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>> Jon >> >>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 12:45 AM, Jingcheng Du < >> >>>>>>>> jingcheng...@intel.com> >> >>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> Hi all, >> >>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> The vote passes with 8 +1s and no -1. Thanks all for >> >>> guiding, >> >>>>>>> helping >> >>>>>>>>> and >> >>>>>>>>>>>> voting! >> >>>>>>>>>>>> We will work on the merge activities and will let guys >> >> know >> >>>> about >> >>>>>>> the >> >>>>>>>>>>>> detailed plan for merge time. >> >>>>>>>>>>>> And thanks Jon for helping merge this branch to trunk! >> >>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> Regards, >> >>>>>>>>>>>> Jingcheng >> >>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> -- >> >>>>>>>>>>>> View this message in context: >> >> >> http://apache-hbase.679495.n3.nabble.com/RESULT-VOTE-Merge-branch-hbase-11339-HBase-MOB-to-trunk-tp4073446.html >> >>>>>>>>>>>> Sent from the HBase Developer mailing list archive at >> >>>> Nabble.com. >> >>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>> -- >> >>>>>>>>>>> // Jonathan Hsieh (shay) >> >>>>>>>>>>> // HBase Tech Lead, Software Engineer, Cloudera >> >>>>>>>>>>> // j...@cloudera.com // @jmhsieh >> >>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>> -- >> >>>>>>>>>> // Jonathan Hsieh (shay) >> >>>>>>>>>> // HBase Tech Lead, Software Engineer, Cloudera >> >>>>>>>>>> // j...@cloudera.com // @jmhsieh >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> -- >> >>>>>>>>> // Jonathan Hsieh (shay) >> >>>>>>>>> // HBase Tech Lead, Software Engineer, Cloudera >> >>>>>>>>> // j...@cloudera.com // @jmhsieh >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> -- >> >>>>>>>> Best regards, >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> - Andy >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - >> >>> Piet >> >>>>>> Hein >> >>>>>>>> (via Tom White) >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> -- >> >>>> Sean >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> Best regards, >> >> >> >> - Andy >> >> >> >> Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet Hein >> >> (via Tom White) >> >> >> > > > > -- > // Jonathan Hsieh (shay) > // HBase Tech Lead, Software Engineer, Cloudera > // j...@cloudera.com // @jmhsieh
