@stack, it compiled for me. Also tried few commands, and have to say, it's well designed from user commands perspective.
On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 5:08 PM, Stack <st...@duboce.net> wrote: > On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 1:50 PM, Vladimir Rodionov <vladrodio...@gmail.com > > > wrote: > > > Michael, > > > > Its in HBASE-7912 > > > > This is tip of git log: > > > > commit a072f6f49a26a7259ff2aaef6cb56d85eb592482 > > Author: Frank Welsch <fwel...@jps.net> > > Date: Fri Sep 23 18:00:42 2016 -0400 > > > > HBASE-16574 Book updates for backup and restore > > > > commit b14e2ab1c24e65ff88dd4c579acf83cb4ed0605e > > Author: tedyu <yuzhih...@gmail.com> > > Date: Wed Oct 5 16:29:40 2016 -0700 > > > > HBASE-16727 Backup refactoring: remove MR dependencies from HMaster > > (Vladimir Rodionov) > > > > > Thanks. I have that. I tried it and it doesn't compile for me. Does it > compile for you? > Thanks, > M > > > > > -Vlad > > > > On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 1:44 PM, Stack <st...@duboce.net> wrote: > > > > > Which branch do I check out to try it? HBASE-7912 is not it. I don't > see > > an > > > HBASE-16727... > > > Thanks, > > > M > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 11:41 AM, Vladimir Rodionov < > > > vladrodio...@gmail.com> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > The last patch is on review board: > > > > https://reviews.apache.org/r/52748 > > > > > > > > On Mon, Oct 10, 2016 at 3:52 PM, Vladimir Rodionov < > > > vladrodio...@gmail.com > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > >> How hard to put in an hbase-backup module? hbase-server is fat > > > enough > > > > > >> already. Could be done as a follow-up. > > > > > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-16727? > > > > > focusedCommentId=15531237&page=com.atlassian.jira. > > > > > plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel#comment-15531237 > > > > > > > > > > Can we do merge first? Then we can discuss separate module. > > > > > > > > > > -Vlad > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Oct 10, 2016 at 3:44 PM, Ted Yu <yuzhih...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > >> Looks like the first quote was cut off. > > > > >> The original sentence was: > > > > >> > > > > >> bq. no mapreduce job launched from master or region server. > > > > >> > > > > >> mapreduce job is launched from the node where command line tool is > > > run. > > > > >> > > > > >> On Mon, Oct 10, 2016 at 3:38 PM, Stack <st...@duboce.net> wrote: > > > > >> > > > > >> > bq. launched from master or region server. > > > > >> > > > > > >> > What does this mean please? Has to be run from Master or > > > RegionServer? > > > > >> Can > > > > >> > it be run from another node altogether? > > > > >> > > > > > >> > On Mon, Oct 10, 2016 at 1:44 PM, Vladimir Rodionov < > > > > >> vladrodio...@gmail.com > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > wrote: > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > >> mapreduce dependency has been moved to client side - no > > > mapreduce > > > > >> job > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > 1. We have no code in the client module anymore, due to > > dependency > > > > on > > > > >> > > internal server API (HFile and WAL access). > > > > >> > > 2. Backup/ restore are client - driven operations, but all the > > > code > > > > >> > resides > > > > >> > > in the server module > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > How hard to put in an hbase-backup module? hbase-server is fat > > > enough > > > > >> > already. Could be done as a follow-up. > > > > >> > > > > > >> > Thanks, > > > > >> > St.Ack > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > 3. No MR in Master, no procedure - driven execution. > > > > >> > > 4. Old good MR from command-line. > > > > >> > > 5. Security was simplified and now only super-user is allowed > to > > > run > > > > >> > > backup/restores. > > > > >> > > 6. HBase Backup API was gone due to 1. Now only command-line > > > access > > > > to > > > > >> > > backup tools. > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > These consequences of refactoring has been discussed in > > > HBASE-16727. > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > -Vlad > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > On Mon, Oct 10, 2016 at 1:31 PM, Ted Yu <yuzhih...@gmail.com> > > > > wrote: > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > Reviving this thread. > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > The following has taken place: > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > mapreduce dependency has been moved to client side - no > > > mapreduce > > > > >> job > > > > >> > > > launched from master or region server. > > > > >> > > > document patch (HBASE-16574) has been integrated. > > > > >> > > > Updated mega patch has been attached to HBASE-14123: this > > covers > > > > the > > > > >> > > > refactor in #1 above and the protobuf 3 merge. > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > If community has more feedback on the merge proposal, I > would > > > love > > > > >> to > > > > >> > > hear > > > > >> > > > it. > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > Thanks > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 10:31 AM, Sean Busbey < > > > > bus...@cloudera.com> > > > > >> > > wrote: > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > I'd like to see the docs proposed on HBASE-16574 > integrated > > > into > > > > >> our > > > > >> > > > > project's documentation prior to merge. > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 9:02 AM, Ted Yu < > > yuzhih...@gmail.com> > > > > >> wrote: > > > > >> > > > > > This feature can be marked experimental due to some > > > > limitations > > > > >> > such > > > > >> > > as > > > > >> > > > > > security. > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > Your previous round of comments have been addressed. > > > > >> > > > > > Command line tool has gone through: > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > HBASE-16620 Fix backup command-line tool usability > issues > > > > >> > > > > > HBASE-16655 hbase backup describe with incorrect backup > id > > > > >> results > > > > >> > in > > > > >> > > > NPE > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > The updated doc has been attached to HBASE-16574. > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > Cheers > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 8:53 AM, Stack < > st...@duboce.net> > > > > >> wrote: > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >> On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 7:43 AM, Ted Yu < > > > yuzhih...@gmail.com > > > > > > > > > >> > > wrote: > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > Are there more (review) comments ? > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> Are outstanding comments addressed? > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> I don't see answer to my 'is this experimental/will it > be > > > > >> marked > > > > >> > > > > >> experimental' question. > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> I ran into some issues trying to use the feature and > > > > suggested > > > > >> > that > > > > >> > > a > > > > >> > > > > >> feature likes this needs polish else it'll just rot, > > > unused. > > > > >> Has > > > > >> > > > polish > > > > >> > > > > >> been applied? All ready for another 'user' test? > Suggest > > > that > > > > >> you > > > > >> > > > update > > > > >> > > > > >> here going forward for the benefit of those trying to > > > follow > > > > >> along > > > > >> > > and > > > > >> > > > > who > > > > >> > > > > >> are not watching JIRA change fly-by. > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> It looks like doc got a revision -- I have to check -- > to > > > > take > > > > >> on > > > > >> > > > > >> suggestion made above but again, suggest, that this > > thread > > > > gets > > > > >> > > > updated. > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> Thanks, > > > > >> > > > > >> St.Ack > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > 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) > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > -- > > > > >> > > > > busbey > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- -- Appy
