I concur with Stack's concerns with a developer not involved in building the MOB feature attempting a backport in general, and furthermore without detailed provenance of all of the incorporated changes. I'm also concerned about how well MOB works in real production given people use branch-1 in production and not trunk.
As for Ted's issue, I'm not going to let him commit it (I will veto) without clear proof that it works and doesn't hurt perf of non MOB cases by way of reproducible benchmarks - benchmarks I can personally reproduce afterward (I'm not volunteering to do Ted's necessary legwork) - done with branch-1 with the proposed patch applied. We are not there yet though, barely, into review, but this will be coming up very soon. > On Mar 2, 2016, at 1:03 PM, Stack <st...@duboce.net> wrote: > >> On Wed, Mar 2, 2016 at 11:26 AM, Devaraj Das <d...@hortonworks.com> wrote: >> >> Stack, as things stand, Ted Yu has a patch that is a backport of MOB. He >> told me offline he has taken a look at the jiras that went in in the master >> that is to do with MOB, and got them in the backport. > > > > On the issue, a near 800k blob is dumped which is described as "...a > backport of MOB... " but w/o attribution of provenance nor any other > description of what it contains. Only when this is pointed-out in the issue > do we get a short listing of supposed JIRAs included with no justification > of what is covered, what is included/excluded, and what machinations were > done to make it fit branch-1 (Yet you offline were given this info?). > > Such poor practice only makes me more intent on my objection. > > > >> Now, to your point, I agree that someone familiar with MOB code should do >> the backport but the question is, is that dev available to do it now? The >> next best thing is to get Ted Yu's patch reviewed by someone familiar with >> the feature. I really hope that we can get cycles from the original MOB >> devs on this. > > > MOB is unsupported? If so, lets for sure not backport it. > > > Agree that we shouldn't be adding flaky tests. The question is if the >> failures on master to do with MOB are really MOB related or something else >> (for argument's sake, let's say, procv2).. > Sounds like we need to spend a bit of time digging in on the flakey tests > then. Branch-1 is pretty stable now after a bunch of expended effort by a > few folks. Would be a pity taking a step back. > > St.Ack > > > >> On the point about the DISCUSS thread, yeah, it's fine to do it if folks >> feel it's the right way to go. >> ________________________________________ >> From: saint....@gmail.com <saint....@gmail.com> on behalf of Stack < >> st...@duboce.net> >> Sent: Wednesday, March 02, 2016 10:55 AM >> To: HBase Dev List >> Subject: Re: MOB in branch-1? (Re: [RESULT][VOTE] Merge branch hbase-11339 >> HBase MOB to trunk) >> >> (Doing another resend...) >> >> I have objection to you, Ted Yu, doing it. MOB has spread all about master >> branch. Backport should be done by someone who knows MOB. >> >> Higher up in this thread, Sean asks: "Can we get a [DISCUSS] flagged thread >> to see what, if anything, folks >> would like to see gate inclusion in branch-1?" Shouldn't we do this before >> we 'create a backport...'. >> >> For me, there should be no new flakies in branch-1. Branch-1 builds are a >> hard-won stable(-ish). Looking at master build, MOB seems quiet lately but >> going by HBASE-15012, our flakies umbrella issue, I see notes that >> TestMobExportSnapshot has failed a few times (that is probably because the >> test it derives from is flakey) and TestMobRestoreFlushSnapshotFromClient >> gets a mention. >> >> St.Ack >> >> >> >>> On Tue, Mar 1, 2016 at 5:27 PM, Stack <st...@duboce.net> wrote: >>> >>> (Doing a resend of below... it doesn't seem to have gone through) >>> >>>> On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 8:20 PM, Ted Yu <yuzhih...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> If there is no objection, I will create a backport JIRA tomorrow and >>>> attach patch. >>> I have objection to you doing it. MOB has spread all about master branch. >>> Backport should be done by someone who knows MOB. >>> >>> Higher up in this thread, Sean asks: "Can we get a [DISCUSS] flagged >>> thread to see what, if anything, folks >>> would like to see gate inclusion in branch-1?" Shouldn't we do this >>> before we 'create a backport...'. >>> >>> For me, there should be no new flakies in branch-1. Branch-1 builds are a >>> hard-won stable(-ish). Looking at master build, MOB seems quiet lately >> but >>> going by HBASE-15012, our flakies umbrella issue, I see notes that >>> TestMobExportSnapshot has failed a few times (that is probably because >> the >>> test it derives from is flakey) and TestMobRestoreFlushSnapshotFromClient >>> gets a mention. >>> >>> St.Ack >>> >>> >>> >>>> On Tue, Mar 1, 2016 at 9:32 AM, Stack <st...@duboce.net> wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 8:20 PM, Ted Yu <yuzhih...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> If there is no objection, I will create a backport JIRA tomorrow and >>>>> attach patch. >>>> I have objection to you doing it. MOB has spread all about master >> branch. >>>> Backport should be done by someone who knows MOB. >>>> >>>> Higher up in this thread, Sean asks: "Can we get a [DISCUSS] flagged >>>> thread to see what, if anything, folks >>>> would like to see gate inclusion in branch-1?" Shouldn't we do this >>>> before we 'create a backport...'. >>>> >>>> For me, there should be no new flakies in branch-1. Branch-1 builds are >> a >>>> hard-won stable(-ish). Looking at master build, MOB seems quiet lately >> but >>>> going by HBASE-15012, our flakies umbrella issue, I see notes that >>>> TestMobExportSnapshot has failed a few times (that is probably because >> the >>>> test it derives from is flakey) and >> TestMobRestoreFlushSnapshotFromClient >>>> gets a mention. >>>> >>>> St.Ack >>
