That's the correct URL. Just uploaded patch v21 on HBASE-14123 to review board.
On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 10:16 AM, Matteo Bertozzi <theo.berto...@gmail.com> wrote: > let me do a "mega patch" review pass. > Is this the latest? https://reviews.apache.org/r/51823/ > > Matteo > > > On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 7:43 AM, Ted Yu <yuzhih...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Are there more (review) comments ? > > > > Thanks > > > > On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 10:02 AM, Devaraj Das <d...@hortonworks.com> > > wrote: > > > > > Just reviving this thread. Thanks Sean, Stack, Dima, and others for the > > > thorough reviews and testing. Thanks Ted and Vlad for taking care of > the > > > feedback. Are we all good to do the merge now? Rather do sooner than > > later. > > > ________________________________________ > > > From: saint....@gmail.com <saint....@gmail.com> on behalf of Stack < > > > st...@duboce.net> > > > Sent: Monday, September 12, 2016 1:18 PM > > > To: HBase Dev List > > > Subject: Re: [DISCUSSION] Merge Backup / Restore - Branch HBASE-7912 > > > > > > On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 12:19 PM, Ted Yu <yuzhih...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > Mega patch (rev 18) is on HBASE-14123. > > > > > > > > Please comment on HBASE-14123 on how you want to review. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yeah. That was my lost tab. Last rb was 6 months ago. Suggest updating > > it. > > > RB is pretty good for review. Patch is only 1.5M so should be fine. > > > > > > St.Ack > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks > > > > > > > > On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 12:15 PM, Stack <st...@duboce.net> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On review of the 'patch', do I just compare the branch to master or > > is > > > > > there a megapatch posted somewhere (I think I saw one but it seemed > > > stale > > > > > and then I 'lost' the tab). Sorry for dumb question. > > > > > St.Ack > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 12:01 PM, Stack <st...@duboce.net> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Late to the game. A few comments after rereading this thread as a > > > > 'user'. > > > > > > > > > > > > + Before merge, a user-facing feature like this should work (If > > this > > > is > > > > > "higher-bar > > > > > > for new features", bring it on -- smile). > > > > > > + As a user, I tried the branch with tools after reviewing the > > > > > just-posted > > > > > > doc. I had an 'interesting' experience (left comments up on > > issue). I > > > > > think > > > > > > the tooling/doc. important to get right. If it breaks easily or > is > > > > > > inconsistent (or lacks 'polish'), operators will judge the whole > > > > > > backup/restore tooling chain as not trustworthy and abandon it. > > Lets > > > > not > > > > > > have this happen to this feature. > > > > > > + Matteo's suggestion (with a helpful starter list) that there > > needs > > > to > > > > > be > > > > > > explicit qualification on what is actually being delivered -- > > > > including a > > > > > > listing of limitations (some look serious such as data bleed from > > > other > > > > > > regions in WALs, but maybe I don't care for my use case...) -- > > needs > > > to > > > > > > accompany the merge. Lets fold them into the user doc. in the > > > technical > > > > > > overview area as suggested so user expectations are properly > > managed > > > > > > (otherwise, they expect the world and will just give up when we > > fall > > > > > > short). Vladimir did a list of what is in each of the phases > above > > > > which > > > > > > would serve as a good start. > > > > > > + Is this feature 'experimental' (Matteo asks above). I'd prefer > it > > > is > > > > > > not. If it is, it should be labelled all over that it is so. I > see > > > > > current > > > > > > state called out as a '... technical preview feature'. Does this > > mean > > > > > > not-for-users? > > > > > > > > > > > > St.Ack > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 8:03 AM, Ted Yu <yuzhih...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > >> Sean: > > > > > >> Do you have more comments ? > > > > > >> > > > > > >> Cheers > > > > > >> > > > > > >> On Fri, Sep 9, 2016 at 1:42 PM, Vladimir Rodionov < > > > > > vladrodio...@gmail.com > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> wrote: > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > Sean, > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > Backup/Restore can fail due to various reasons: network outage > > > > > (cluster > > > > > >> > wide), various time-outs in HBase and HDFS layer, M/R failure > > due > > > to > > > > > >> "HDFS > > > > > >> > exceeded quota", user error (manual deletion of data) and so > on > > so > > > > on. > > > > > >> That > > > > > >> > is impossible to enumerate all possible types of failures in a > > > > > >> distributed > > > > > >> > system - that is not our goal/task. > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > We focus completely on backup system table consistency in a > > > presence > > > > > of > > > > > >> any > > > > > >> > type of failure. That is what I call "tolerance to failures". > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > On a failure: > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > BACKUP. All backup system information (prior to backup) will > be > > > > > restored > > > > > >> > and all temporary data, related to a failed session, in HDFS > > will > > > be > > > > > >> > deleted > > > > > >> > RESTORE. We do not care about system data, because restore > does > > > not > > > > > >> change > > > > > >> > it. Temporary data in HDFS will be cleaned up and table will > be > > > in a > > > > > >> state > > > > > >> > back to where it was before operation started. > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > This is what user should expect in case of a failure. > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > -Vlad > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > -Vlad > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > On Fri, Sep 9, 2016 at 12:56 PM, Sean Busbey < > bus...@apache.org > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > Failing in a consistent way, with docs that explain the > > various > > > > > >> > > expected failures would be sufficient. > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > On Fri, Sep 9, 2016 at 12:16 PM, Vladimir Rodionov > > > > > >> > > <vladrodio...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > >> > > > Do not worry Sean, doc is coming today as a preview and > our > > > > writer > > > > > >> > Frank > > > > > >> > > > will be working on a putting it into Apache repo. > Timeline > > > > > depends > > > > > >> on > > > > > >> > > > Franks schedule but I hope we will get it rather sooner > than > > > > > later. > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > As for failure testing, we are focusing only on a > consistent > > > > state > > > > > >> of > > > > > >> > > > backup system data in a presence of any type of failures, > We > > > are > > > > > not > > > > > >> > > going > > > > > >> > > > to implement anything more "fancy", than that. We allow > > both: > > > > > >> backup > > > > > >> > and > > > > > >> > > > restore to fail. What we do not allow is to have system > data > > > > > >> corrupted. > > > > > >> > > > Will it suffice for you? Do you have any other concerns, > you > > > > want > > > > > >> us to > > > > > >> > > > address? > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > -Vlad > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > On Fri, Sep 9, 2016 at 10:56 AM, Sean Busbey < > > > bus...@apache.org > > > > > > > > > > >> > wrote: > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > >> "docs will come to Apache soon" does not address my > concern > > > > > around > > > > > >> > docs > > > > > >> > > at > > > > > >> > > >> all, unless said docs have already made it into the > project > > > > > repo. I > > > > > >> > > don't > > > > > >> > > >> want third party resources for using a major and > important > > > > > feature > > > > > >> of > > > > > >> > > the > > > > > >> > > >> project, I want us to provide end users with what they > need > > > to > > > > > get > > > > > >> the > > > > > >> > > job > > > > > >> > > >> done. > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > >> > > >> I see some calls for patience on the failure testing, but > > the > > > > > >> appeal > > > > > >> > to > > > > > >> > > us > > > > > >> > > >> having done a bad job of requiring proper tests of > previous > > > > > >> features > > > > > >> > > just > > > > > >> > > >> makes me more concerned about not getting them here. I > > don't > > > > want > > > > > >> to > > > > > >> > set > > > > > >> > > >> yet another bad example that will then be pointed to in > the > > > > > future. > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > >> > > >> On Sep 8, 2016 10:50, "Ted Yu" <yuzhih...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > >> > > >> > Is there any concern which is not addressed ? > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > >> > > >> > Do we need another Vote thread ? > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > >> > > >> > Thanks > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > >> > > >> > On Thu, Sep 8, 2016 at 9:21 AM, Andrew Purtell < > > > > > >> apurt...@apache.org > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > >> > wrote: > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > >> > > >> > > Vlad, > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > >> > > I apologize for using the term 'half-baked' in a way > > that > > > > > could > > > > > >> > > seem a > > > > > >> > > >> > > description of HBASE-7912. I meant that as a general > > > > > >> hypothetical. > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > >> > > On Wed, Sep 7, 2016 at 9:36 AM, Vladimir Rodionov < > > > > > >> > > >> > vladrodio...@gmail.com> > > > > > >> > > >> > > wrote: > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > >> > > > >> I'm not sure that "There is already lots of > > > half-baked > > > > > >> code > > > > > >> > in > > > > > >> > > the > > > > > >> > > >> > > > branch, > > > > > >> > > >> > > > so what's the harm in adding more?" > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > >> > > > I meant - not production - ready yet. This is 2.0 > > > > > development > > > > > >> > > branch > > > > > >> > > >> > and, > > > > > >> > > >> > > > hence many features are in works, > > > > > >> > > >> > > > not being tested well etc. I do not consider backup > > as > > > > half > > > > > >> > baked > > > > > >> > > >> > > feature - > > > > > >> > > >> > > > it has passed our internal QA and has very good > doc, > > > > which > > > > > we > > > > > >> > will > > > > > >> > > >> > > provide > > > > > >> > > >> > > > to Apache shortly. > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > >> > > > -Vlad > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > >> > > > On Wed, Sep 7, 2016 at 9:13 AM, Andrew Purtell < > > > > > >> > > apurt...@apache.org> > > > > > >> > > >> > > > wrote: > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > We shouldn't admit half baked changes that won't > be > > > > > >> finished. > > > > > >> > > >> However > > > > > >> > > >> > > in > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > this case the crew working on this feature are > long > > > > > timers > > > > > >> and > > > > > >> > > less > > > > > >> > > >> > > > likely > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > than just about anyone to leave something in a > half > > > > baked > > > > > >> > > state. Of > > > > > >> > > >> > > > course > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > there is no guarantee how anything will turn out, > > > but I > > > > > am > > > > > >> > > willing > > > > > >> > > >> to > > > > > >> > > >> > > > take > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > a little on faith if they feel their best path > > > forward > > > > > now > > > > > >> is > > > > > >> > to > > > > > >> > > >> > merge > > > > > >> > > >> > > to > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > trunk. I only wish I had bandwidth to have done > > some > > > > real > > > > > >> > > kicking > > > > > >> > > >> of > > > > > >> > > >> > > the > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > tires by now. Maybe this week. > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > (Yes, I'm using some of that time for this email > > :-) > > > > but > > > > > I > > > > > >> > type > > > > > >> > > >> > fast.) > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > That said, I would like to agitate for making 2.0 > > > more > > > > > real > > > > > >> > and > > > > > >> > > >> spend > > > > > >> > > >> > > > some > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > time on it now that I'm winding down with 0.98. I > > > think > > > > > >> that > > > > > >> > > means > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > branching for 2.0 real soon now and even evicting > > > > things > > > > > >> from > > > > > >> > > 2.0 > > > > > >> > > >> > > branch > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > that aren't finished or stable, leaving them only > > > once > > > > > >> again > > > > > >> > in > > > > > >> > > the > > > > > >> > > >> > > > master > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > branch. Or, maybe just evicting them. Let's take > it > > > > case > > > > > by > > > > > >> > > case. > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > I think this feature can come in relatively > safely. > > > As > > > > > >> added > > > > > >> > > >> > insurance, > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > let's admit the possibility it could be reverted > on > > > the > > > > > 2.0 > > > > > >> > > branch > > > > > >> > > >> if > > > > > >> > > >> > > > folks > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > working on stabilizing 2.0 decide to evict it > > because > > > > it > > > > > is > > > > > >> > > >> > unfinished > > > > > >> > > >> > > or > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > unstable, because that certainly can happen. I > > would > > > > > >> expect if > > > > > >> > > talk > > > > > >> > > >> > > like > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > that starts, we'd get help finishing or > stabilizing > > > > > what's > > > > > >> > under > > > > > >> > > >> > > > discussion > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > for revert. Or, we'd have a revert. Either way > the > > > > > outcome > > > > > >> is > > > > > >> > > >> > > acceptable. > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > On Wed, Sep 7, 2016 at 8:56 AM, Dima Spivak < > > > > > >> > > dimaspi...@apache.org > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > >> > > >> > > > wrote: > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > I'm not sure that "There is already lots of > > > > half-baked > > > > > >> code > > > > > >> > in > > > > > >> > > >> the > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > branch, > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > so what's the harm in adding more?" is a good > > code > > > > > commit > > > > > >> > > >> > philosophy > > > > > >> > > >> > > > for > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > a > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > fault-tolerant distributed data store. ;) > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > More seriously, a lack of test coverage for > > > existing > > > > > >> > features > > > > > >> > > >> > > shouldn't > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > be > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > used as justification for introducing new > > features > > > > with > > > > > >> the > > > > > >> > > same > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > shortcomings. Ultimately, it's the end user who > > > will > > > > > feel > > > > > >> > the > > > > > >> > > >> pain, > > > > > >> > > >> > > so > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > shouldn't we do everything we can to mitigate > > that? > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > -Dima > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > On Wed, Sep 7, 2016 at 8:46 AM, Vladimir > > Rodionov < > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > vladrodio...@gmail.com> > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > Sean, > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > * have docs > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > Agree. We have a doc and backup is the most > > > > > documented > > > > > >> > > feature > > > > > >> > > >> > :), > > > > > >> > > >> > > we > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > will > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > release it shortly to Apache. > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > * have sunny-day correctness tests > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > Feature has close to 60 test cases, which > run > > > for > > > > > >> approx > > > > > >> > 30 > > > > > >> > > >> min. > > > > > >> > > >> > > We > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > can > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > add more, if community do not mind :) > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > * have correctness-in-face-of-failure tests > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > Any examples of these tests in existing > > features? > > > > In > > > > > >> > works, > > > > > >> > > we > > > > > >> > > >> > > have a > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > clear > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > understanding of what should be done by the > > time > > > of > > > > > 2.0 > > > > > >> > > >> release. > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > That is very close goal for us, to verify IT > > > monkey > > > > > for > > > > > >> > > >> existing > > > > > >> > > >> > > > code. > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > * don't rely on things outside of HBase for > > > normal > > > > > >> > operation > > > > > >> > > >> > (okay > > > > > >> > > >> > > > for > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > advanced operation) > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > We do not. > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > Enormous time has been spent already on the > > > > > development > > > > > >> > and > > > > > >> > > >> > testing > > > > > >> > > >> > > > the > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > feature, it has passed our internal tests and > > > many > > > > > >> rounds > > > > > >> > of > > > > > >> > > >> code > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > reviews > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > by HBase committers. We do not mind if > someone > > > from > > > > > >> HBase > > > > > >> > > >> > community > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > (outside of HW) will review the code, but it > > will > > > > > >> probably > > > > > >> > > >> takes > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > forever > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > to > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > wait for volunteer?, the feature is quite > large > > > > (1MB+ > > > > > >> > > >> cumulative > > > > > >> > > >> > > > patch) > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > 2.0 branch is full of half baked features, > most > > > of > > > > > them > > > > > >> > are > > > > > >> > > in > > > > > >> > > >> > > active > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > development, therefore I am not following you > > > here, > > > > > >> Sean? > > > > > >> > > Why > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > HBASE-7912 > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > is > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > not good enough yet to be integrated into 2.0 > > > > branch? > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > -Vlad > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > On Wed, Sep 7, 2016 at 8:23 AM, Sean Busbey < > > > > > >> > > bus...@apache.org > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > >> > > >> > > > wrote: > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 10:36 PM, Josh > Elser < > > > > > >> > > >> > > josh.el...@gmail.com> > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > So, the answer to Sean's original > question > > is > > > > "as > > > > > >> > > robust as > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > snapshots > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > presently are"? (independence of > > > backup/restore > > > > > >> > failure > > > > > >> > > >> > > tolerance > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > from > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > snapshot failure tolerance) > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > Is this just a question WRT context of > the > > > > > change, > > > > > >> or > > > > > >> > > is it > > > > > >> > > >> > > means > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > for a > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > veto > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > from you, Sean? Just trying to make sure > > I'm > > > > > >> following > > > > > >> > > >> along > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > adequately. > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > I'd say ATM I'm -0, bordering on -1 but not > > for > > > > > >> reasons > > > > > >> > I > > > > > >> > > can > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > articulate > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > well. > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > Here's an attempt. > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > We've been trying to move, as a community, > > > > towards > > > > > >> > > minimizing > > > > > >> > > >> > > risk > > > > > >> > > >> > > > to > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > downstream folks by getting "complete > enough > > > for > > > > > use" > > > > > >> > > gates > > > > > >> > > >> in > > > > > >> > > >> > > > place > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > before we introduce new features. This was > > > > spurred > > > > > >> by a > > > > > >> > > some > > > > > >> > > >> > > > features > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > getting in half-baked and never making it > to > > > "can > > > > > >> really > > > > > >> > > use" > > > > > >> > > >> > > > status > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > (I'm thinking of distributed log replay and > > the > > > > > >> zk-less > > > > > >> > > >> > > assignment > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > stuff, I don't recall if there was more). > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > The gates, generally, included things like: > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > * have docs > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > * have sunny-day correctness tests > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > * have correctness-in-face-of-failure tests > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > * don't rely on things outside of HBase for > > > > normal > > > > > >> > > operation > > > > > >> > > >> > > (okay > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > for > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > advanced operation) > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > As an example, we kept the MOB work off in > a > > > > branch > > > > > >> and > > > > > >> > > out > > > > > >> > > >> of > > > > > >> > > >> > > > master > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > until it could pass these criteria. The big > > > > > exemption > > > > > >> > > we've > > > > > >> > > >> had > > > > > >> > > >> > > to > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > this was the hbase-spark integration, where > > we > > > > all > > > > > >> > agreed > > > > > >> > > it > > > > > >> > > >> > > could > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > land in master because it was very well > > > isolated > > > > > (the > > > > > >> > > slide > > > > > >> > > >> > away > > > > > >> > > >> > > > from > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > including docs as a first-class part of > > > building > > > > up > > > > > >> that > > > > > >> > > >> > > > integration > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > has led me to doubt the wisdom of this > > > decision). > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > We've also been treating inclusion in a > > > "probably > > > > > >> will > > > > > >> > be > > > > > >> > > >> > > released > > > > > >> > > >> > > > to > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > downstream" branches as a higher bar, > > requiring > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > * don't moderately impact performance when > > the > > > > > >> feature > > > > > >> > > isn't > > > > > >> > > >> in > > > > > >> > > >> > > use > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > * don't severely impact performance when > the > > > > > feature > > > > > >> is > > > > > >> > in > > > > > >> > > >> use > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > * either default-to-on or show enough > demand > > to > > > > > >> believe > > > > > >> > a > > > > > >> > > >> > > > non-trivial > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > number of folks will turn the feature on > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > The above has kept MOB and hbase-spark > > > > integration > > > > > >> out > > > > > >> > of > > > > > >> > > >> > > branch-1, > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > presumably while they've "gotten more > stable" > > > in > > > > > >> master > > > > > >> > > from > > > > > >> > > >> > the > > > > > >> > > >> > > > odd > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > vendor inclusion. > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > Are we going to have a 2.0 release before > the > > > end > > > > > of > > > > > >> the > > > > > >> > > >> year? > > > > > >> > > >> > > > We're > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > coming up on 1.5 years since the release of > > > > version > > > > > >> 1.0; > > > > > >> > > >> seems > > > > > >> > > >> > > like > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > it's about time, though I haven't seen any > > > > concrete > > > > > >> > plans > > > > > >> > > >> this > > > > > >> > > >> > > > year. > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > Presuming we are going to have one by the > end > > > of > > > > > the > > > > > >> > > year, it > > > > > >> > > >> > > > seems a > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > bit close to still be adding in "features > > that > > > > need > > > > > >> > > maturing" > > > > > >> > > >> > on > > > > > >> > > >> > > > the > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > branch. > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > The lack of a concrete plan for 2.0 keeps > me > > > from > > > > > >> > > considering > > > > > >> > > >> > > these > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > things blocker at the moment. But I know > > first > > > > hand > > > > > >> how > > > > > >> > > much > > > > > >> > > >> > > > trouble > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > folks have had with other features that > have > > > gone > > > > > >> into > > > > > >> > > >> > downstream > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > facing releases without robustness checks > > (i.e. > > > > > >> > > replication), > > > > > >> > > >> > and > > > > > >> > > >> > > > I'm > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > concerned about what we're setting up if > 2.0 > > > goes > > > > > out > > > > > >> > with > > > > > >> > > >> this > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > feature in its current state. > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > -- > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > Best regards, > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > - Andy > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by > > > hitting > > > > > >> back. - > > > > > >> > > Piet > > > > > >> > > >> > > Hein > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > (via Tom White) > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > >> > > -- > > > > > >> > > >> > > Best regards, > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > >> > > - Andy > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > >> > > Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by > hitting > > > > back. > > > > > - > > > > > >> > Piet > > > > > >> > > >> Hein > > > > > >> > > >> > > (via Tom White) > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
