Ditto. Worked for me: $ java -version java version "1.8.0_102" Java(TM) SE Runtime Environment (build 1.8.0_102-b14) Java HotSpot(TM) 64-Bit Server VM (build 25.102-b14, mixed mode)
________________________________________ From: Vladimir Rodionov <vladrodio...@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, October 12, 2016 1:10 PM To: dev@hbase.apache.org Subject: Re: [DISCUSSION] Merge Backup / Restore - Branch HBASE-7912 checked out HBASE-7912 ran: mvn clean install -DskipTests successfully. -Vlad On Wed, Oct 12, 2016 at 1:01 PM, Vladimir Rodionov <vladrodio...@gmail.com> wrote: > I usually use: > > mvn clean install -DskipTests > > and it works. > > On Wed, Oct 12, 2016 at 1:01 PM, Vladimir Rodionov <vladrodio...@gmail.com > > wrote: > >> Michael, >> >> you can try master + latest patch on HBASE-14123 (v29). No need to use >> HBASE-7912 branch. I will double check HBASE-7912. >> >> -Vlad >> >> On Wed, Oct 12, 2016 at 12:31 PM, Stack <st...@duboce.net> wrote: >> >>> More info: >>> >>> stack@ve0524:~/hbase.git$ git checkout origin/HBASE-7912 -b 7912v2 >>> Branch 7912v2 set up to track remote branch HBASE-7912 from origin. >>> Switched to a new branch '7912v2' >>> stack@ve0524:~/hbase.git$ java -version >>> java version "1.8.0_101" >>> Java(TM) SE Runtime Environment (build 1.8.0_101-b13) >>> Java HotSpot(TM) 64-Bit Server VM (build 25.101-b13, mixed mode) >>> stack@ve0524:~/hbase.git$ mvn clean install -DskipTests &> /tmp/out.txt >>> >>> ... >>> >>> St.Ack >>> >>> >>> On Wed, Oct 12, 2016 at 12:29 PM, Stack <st...@duboce.net> wrote: >>> >>> > Interesting. When I try it fails w/ below: >>> > >>> > [INFO] 26 warnings >>> > 322 [INFO] ------------------------------ >>> ------------------------------- >>> > 323 [INFO] ------------------------------ >>> ------------------------------- >>> > 324 [ERROR] COMPILATION ERROR : >>> > 325 [INFO] ------------------------------ >>> ------------------------------- >>> > 326 [ERROR] /home/stack/hbase.git/hbase-common/src/main/java/org/ >>> > apache/hadoop/hbase/io/encoding/rowindexV2/RowIndexCodecV2.java:[48,8] >>> > org.apache.hadoop.hbase.io.encoding.rowindexV2.RowIndexCodecV2 is not >>> > abstract and does not override abstract method createSeeker(org.ap >>> > ache.hadoop.hbase.CellComparator,org.apache.hadoop.hbase.io. >>> encoding.HFileBlockDecodingContext) >>> > in org.apache.hadoop.hbase.io.encoding.DataBlockEncoder >>> > 327 [ERROR] /home/stack/hbase.git/hbase-common/src/main/java/org/ >>> > apache/hadoop/hbase/io/encoding/rowindexV2/RowIndexCodecV2.j >>> ava:[143,3] >>> > method does not override or implement a method from a supertype >>> > 328 [ERROR] /home/stack/hbase.git/hbase-common/src/main/java/org/ >>> > apache/hadoop/hbase/io/encoding/rowindexV2/RowIndexCodecV2.j >>> ava:[147,29] >>> > incompatible types: java.nio.ByteBuffer cannot be converted to >>> > org.apache.hadoop.hbase.nio.ByteBuff >>> > 329 [ERROR] /home/stack/hbase.git/hbase-common/src/main/java/org/ >>> > apache/hadoop/hbase/io/encoding/rowindexV2/RowIndexCodecV2.j >>> ava:[148,33] >>> > cannot find symbol >>> > 330 symbol: method getKeyDeepCopy() >>> > 331 location: variable seeker of type org.apache.hadoop.hbase.io. >>> > encoding.DataBlockEncoder.EncodedSeeker >>> > 332 [ERROR] /home/stack/hbase.git/hbase-common/src/main/java/org/ >>> > apache/hadoop/hbase/io/encoding/rowindexV2/RowIndexCodecV2.j >>> ava:[153,3] >>> > method does not override or implement a method from a supertype >>> > 333 [ERROR] /home/stack/hbase.git/hbase-common/src/main/java/org/ >>> > apache/hadoop/hbase/io/encoding/rowindexV1/RowIndexCodecV1.java:[45,8] >>> > org.apache.hadoop.hbase.io.encoding.rowindexV1.RowIndexCodecV1 is not >>> > abstract and does not override abstract method createSeeker(org.ap >>> > ache.hadoop.hbase.CellComparator,org.apache.hadoop.hbase.io. >>> encoding.HFileBlockDecodingContext) >>> > in org.apache.hadoop.hbase.io.encoding.DataBlockEncoder >>> > 334 [ERROR] /home/stack/hbase.git/hbase-common/src/main/java/org/ >>> > apache/hadoop/hbase/io/encoding/rowindexV1/RowIndexCodecV1.j >>> ava:[145,3] >>> > method does not override or implement a method from a supertype >>> > 335 [ERROR] /home/stack/hbase.git/hbase-common/src/main/java/org/ >>> > apache/hadoop/hbase/io/encoding/rowindexV1/RowIndexCodecV1.j >>> ava:[158,3] >>> > method does not override or implement a method from a supertype >>> > 336 [ERROR] /home/stack/hbase.git/hbase-common/src/main/java/org/ >>> > apache/hadoop/hbase/io/encoding/rowindexV2/RowIndexSeekerV2. >>> java:[46,8] >>> > org.apache.hadoop.hbase.io.encoding.rowindexV2.RowIndexSeekerV2 is not >>> > abstract and does not override abstract method compareKey(org.ap >>> > ache.hadoop.hbase.CellComparator,org.apache.hadoop.hbase.Cell) in >>> > org.apache.hadoop.hbase.io.encoding.DataBlockEncoder.EncodedSeeker >>> > 337 [ERROR] /home/stack/hbase.git/hbase-common/src/main/java/org/ >>> > apache/hadoop/hbase/io/encoding/rowindexV2/RowIndexSeekerV2. >>> java:[79,3] >>> > method does not override or implement a method from a supertype >>> > 338 [ERROR] /home/stack/hbase.git/hbase-common/src/main/java/org/ >>> > apache/hadoop/hbase/io/encoding/rowindexV2/RowIndexSeekerV2. >>> java:[117,3] >>> > method does not override or implement a method from a supertype >>> > 339 [ERROR] /home/stack/hbase.git/hbase-common/src/main/java/org/ >>> > apache/hadoop/hbase/io/encoding/rowindexV2/RowIndexSeekerV2. >>> java:[190,3] >>> > method does not override or implement a method from a supertype >>> > 340 [ERROR] /home/stack/hbase.git/hbase-common/src/main/java/org/ >>> > apache/hadoop/hbase/io/encoding/rowindexV2/RowIndexSeekerV2. >>> java:[214,3] >>> > method does not override or implement a method from a supertype >>> > 341 [ERROR] /home/stack/hbase.git/hbase-common/src/main/java/org/ >>> > apache/hadoop/hbase/io/encoding/rowindexV2/RowIndexSeekerV2. >>> java:[349,3] >>> > method does not override or implement a method from a supertype >>> > 342 [ERROR] /home/stack/hbase.git/hbase-common/src/main/java/org/ >>> > apache/hadoop/hbase/io/encoding/rowindexV2/RowIndexSeekerV2. >>> java:[355,3] >>> > method does not override or implement a method from a supertype >>> > 343 [ERROR] /home/stack/hbase.git/hbase-common/src/main/java/org/ >>> > apache/hadoop/hbase/io/encoding/rowindexV2/RowIndexSeekerV2. >>> java:[421,36] >>> > no suitable method found for uncompressTags(java.nio. >>> > ByteBuffer,byte[],int,int) >>> > 344 method org.apache.hadoop.hbase.io.TagCompressionContext. >>> > uncompressTags(java.io.InputStream,byte[],int,int) is not applicable >>> > 345 (argument mismatch; java.nio.ByteBuffer cannot be converted >>> to >>> > java.io.InputStream) >>> > 346 method org.apache.hadoop.hbase.io.TagCompressionContext. >>> > uncompressTags(org.apache.hadoop.hbase.nio.ByteBuff,byte[],int,int) is >>> > not applicable >>> > 347 (argument mismatch; java.nio.ByteBuffer cannot be converted >>> to >>> > org.apache.hadoop.hbase.nio.ByteBuff) >>> > >>> > .... >>> > >>> > St.Ack >>> > >>> > On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 5:12 PM, Apekshit Sharma <a...@cloudera.com> >>> > wrote: >>> > >>> >> @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:c >>> omment-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 >>> >> >>> > >>> > >>> >> >> >
