I tried to delete the HBASE-14123 branch using commands I found on http://stackoverflow.com/questions/2003505/how-to-delete-a-git-branch-both-locally-and-remotely
Not sure if there is lag on github side: $ git push origin :origin/HBASE-14123 error: unable to delete 'origin/HBASE-14123': remote ref does not exist error: failed to push some refs to ' https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf/hbase.git' FYI On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 4:05 PM, Enis Söztutar <e...@apache.org> wrote: > I think there is some misconception of using the term "blockers" for > referring to those jiras. My understanding is that those three jiras are > blockers for the backup functionality to be more mature and more usable. > But they are not release blockers. Let's say we merged the code in, and for > some reason those did not get addressed in time. We can still do the 2.0 > release without having to wait for the commits. We can instead mark the > "backup" feature as experimental with known issues and go on with the > release. In that sense they are not real release blockers. > > We are proposing the merge at this time because of the above that > maintaining this in a branch is becoming extremely costly and not > productive for the HBase community. Realistically, we cannot have the > luxury of having to wait another couple of months and doing yet another > giant round of reviews because the code base is a moving target. > > Enis > > On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 3:46 PM, Devaraj Das <d...@hortonworks.com> wrote: > > > Vlad, on the first point, I think what Stack is saying is that creating > > the new branch (as Ted did) ignores the feedback incorporated thus far in > > the iterations of the mega-patch. That's a wrong way to go. > > On the separation into a backup module, again, that was reverted to ease > > reviews of the mega-patch, and was noted as work to be done later. I > think > > Stack just wants to make the list of remaining work more complete by > citing > > that as pending work. > > ________________________________________ > > From: Vladimir Rodionov <vladrodio...@gmail.com> > > Sent: Monday, March 13, 2017 3:09 PM > > To: dev@hbase.apache.org > > Subject: Re: [VOTE] Backup/Restore feature for HBase 2.0, vote closing > > 3/11/2017 > > > > >> It ignores the feedback > > > > If I "ignore" feedback, I put my comment - why? I am always open for > > further discussions. If reviewer does not insist on a particular request > - > > it will be dropped. I think it is fair. > > > > >> he list is incomplete because a bunch of > > >> follow-ons came of the review cycle (including moving backup/restore > out > > of > > >> core to live in its own module). > > > > For those who were not following our lengthy conversation on a review > > board, separation of a backup code into a separate module has been > > done last year, but has been reverted back by request of a reviewer. > > > > > > -Vladimir > > > > On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 2:23 PM, Stack <st...@duboce.net> wrote: > > > > > On Fri, Mar 10, 2017 at 9:09 PM, Stack <st...@duboce.net> wrote: > > > > > > > On Fri, Mar 10, 2017 at 6:01 PM, Ted Yu <yuzhih...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > >> HBASE-14123 branch has been created, with Vlad's mega patch v61. > > > >> > > > > > > > > The patch put up for VOTE here was done on a branch. The call to > merge > > > > seems to have been premature given the many cycles of review and test > > > that > > > > happened subsequent (The cycles burned a bunch of dev resource). > > > > > > > > The patch as is is now in a state where it is too big for our infra; > rb > > > > and JIRA are creaking under the size and # of iterations. > > > > > > > > Adding finish of new JIRAs to this merge implies a new round of > review > > > and > > > > test of an already massive patch. Who is going to do this work? > > > > > > > > Going back to a new branch seems wrong route to take. > > > > > > > > St.Ack > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > To be more explicit, this patch was developed on a branch and then a > > bunch > > > of dev resources were burned getting it into a state where it could be > > > merged to master. Going back to a branch to bulk up the merge so it > > > includes more JIRAs than the many it already incorporates is the wrong > > > direction for us to be headed in. It ignores the feedback given and the > > > work done by Vladimir slimming down an already over-broad scope. It is > > also > > > predicated on abundant review and testing resource being on tap to > cycle > > on > > > a feature that is useful, but non-core. > > > > > > The patch is ready for merge IMO. Geoffrey makes a nice list of what is > > > still to do though IIRC, the list is incomplete because a bunch of > > > follow-ons came of the review cycle (including moving backup/restore > out > > of > > > core to live in its own module). > > > > > > The patch needs three votes to merge. I am not against merge but I am > not > > > voting for the patch because I do have any more time to spend on this > > > non-core feature and feel that a vote will have me assume a > > responsibility > > > I will not shirk. > > > > > > S > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> FYI > > > >> > > > >> On Fri, Mar 10, 2017 at 3:30 PM, Ted Yu <yuzhih...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > >> > > > >> > Thanks for the feedback, Andrew. > > > >> > > > > >> > How about the following plan: > > > >> > > > > >> > create branch HBASE-14123 off of master with mega patch v61 as the > > > first > > > >> > commit (reviewed by Stack and Enis) > > > >> > Vlad and I continue development (the 3 blockers) based on > > HBASE-14123 > > > >> > branch > > > >> > when all of the blockers get +1 and merged into HBASE-14123 > branch, > > we > > > >> > propose to community for merging into branch-2 (master branch, if > > > >> branch-2 > > > >> > doesn't materialize for whatever reason) again > > > >> > > > > >> > Cheers > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > On Fri, Mar 10, 2017 at 3:01 PM, Andrew Purtell < > > apurt...@apache.org> > > > >> > wrote: > > > >> > > > > >> >> Thanks for the offer but I like that you were honest about > > compiling > > > a > > > >> >> list > > > >> >> of issues that you thought were blockers for release. Since this > > > >> proposal > > > >> >> is a merge into 2.0, and we are trying to release 2.0, I am -1 on > > > this > > > >> >> merge until those blockers are addressed. > > > >> >> > > > >> >> I had a look at the list. > > > >> >> > > > >> >> I think the documentation issue is important but not actually a > > > >> blocker. > > > >> >> That may be a controversial opinion, but documentation can be > > > >> back-filled > > > >> >> worst case. So take HBASE-17133 off the list. > > > >> >> > > > >> >> Remaining are effectively HBASE-14417, HBASE-14141, and > > HBASE-15227. > > > >> They > > > >> >> all have patches attached to the respective JIRAs so completing > > this > > > >> work > > > >> >> won't be onerous. Get these committed and I will lift my -1. The > > > others > > > >> >> who > > > >> >> voted +1 on this thread surely can help with that. > > > >> >> > > > >> >> Thanks. > > > >> >> > > > >> >> > > > >> >> On Fri, Mar 10, 2017 at 2:32 PM, Vladimir Rodionov < > > > >> >> vladrodio...@gmail.com> > > > >> >> wrote: > > > >> >> > > > >> >> > No problem I will downgrade Blockers to Majors if it scares > you, > > > >> Andrew > > > >> >> 🙂 > > > >> >> > > > > >> >> > Sent from my iPhone > > > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > On Mar 10, 2017, at 1:52 PM, Andrew Purtell < > > apurt...@apache.org > > > > > > > >> >> wrote: > > > >> >> > > > > > >> >> > > I know the merge of this feature has lagged substantially. I > > > think > > > >> >> that > > > >> >> > is > > > >> >> > > regrettable but on another thread we are lamenting that 2.0 > is > > > >> already > > > >> >> > > late. Unless I misunderstand, this is a proposal to merge > > > something > > > >> >> with > > > >> >> > > known blockers into trunk before we branch it for 2.0 which > > will > > > >> >> > > effectively prevent that release because these blockers will > be > > > >> >> there. I > > > >> >> > am > > > >> >> > > inclined to veto. Probably we should not propose branch > merges > > > into > > > >> >> code > > > >> >> > we > > > >> >> > > are trying to get out the door with known blockers. Why not > do > > > that > > > >> >> work > > > >> >> > > first? It seems an obvious question. Perhaps I am missing > > > >> something. > > > >> >> > > > > > >> >> > > If we can branch for 2.0 now and then merge this, and not > into > > > the > > > >> 2.0 > > > >> >> > > branch, I would vote +1 for branch merge even with known > > blockers > > > >> >> > pending. > > > >> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >> >> > > On Fri, Mar 10, 2017 at 1:42 PM, Vladimir Rodionov < > > > >> >> > vladrodio...@gmail.com> > > > >> >> > > wrote: > > > >> >> > > > > > >> >> > >> They are not blockers for merge - only for 2.0. GA > > > >> >> > >> As I said already the feature is usable right now > > > >> >> > >> We would like to continue working on master and we would > like > > to > > > >> see > > > >> >> a > > > >> >> > >> commitment from community > > > >> >> > >> > > > >> >> > >> Sent from my iPhone > > > >> >> > >> > > > >> >> > >> On Mar 10, 2017, at 11:16 AM, Andrew Purtell < > > > apurt...@apache.org > > > >> > > > > >> >> > wrote: > > > >> >> > >> > > > >> >> > >>>> Only BLOCKERs and CRITICALs are guaranteed for HBase 2.0 > > > >> release. > > > >> >> > >>> > > > >> >> > >>> If we have identified blockers, why merge this before they > > are > > > >> in? > > > >> >> > >>> Otherwise we can't release 2.0, and it is overdue. > > > >> >> > >>> > > > >> >> > >>> > > > >> >> > >>> On Wed, Mar 8, 2017 at 1:32 PM, Vladimir Rodionov < > > > >> >> > >> vladrodio...@gmail.com> > > > >> >> > >>> wrote: > > > >> >> > >>> > > > >> >> > >>>> Hello, HBase folks > > > >> >> > >>>> > > > >> >> > >>>> For your consideration today is Backup/Restore feature for > > > >> Apache > > > >> >> > HBAse > > > >> >> > >>>> 2.0. > > > >> >> > >>>> Backup code is available as a mega patch in HBASE-14123 > > (v61), > > > >> >> applies > > > >> >> > >>>> cleanly to the current master, all test PASS, patch has no > > > other > > > >> >> > issues. > > > >> >> > >>>> > > > >> >> > >>>> The patch has gone through numerous rounds of code reviews > > and > > > >> has > > > >> >> > >> probably > > > >> >> > >>>> the most lengthy discussion thread on Apache JIRA > > > (HBASE-14123) > > > >> :) > > > >> >> > >>>> > > > >> >> > >>>> The work has been split into 3 phases (HBASE-14030, 14123, > > > >> 14414) > > > >> >> Two > > > >> >> > >> first > > > >> >> > >>>> are complete, third one is still in progress. > > > >> >> > >>>> > > > >> >> > >>>> > > > >> >> > >>>> *** Summary of work HBASE-14123 > > > >> >> > >>>> > > > >> >> > >>>> The new feature introduces new command-line extensions to > > the > > > >> hbase > > > >> >> > >> command > > > >> >> > >>>> and, from the client side, is accessible through > > command-line > > > >> only > > > >> >> > >>>> Operations: > > > >> >> > >>>> * Create full backup on a list of tables or backup set > > > >> >> > >>>> * Create incremental backup image for table list or backup > > set > > > >> >> > >>>> * Restore list of tables from a given backup image > > > >> >> > >>>> * Show current backup progress > > > >> >> > >>>> * Delete backup image and all related images > > > >> >> > >>>> * Show history of backups > > > >> >> > >>>> * Backup set operations: create backup set, add/remove > table > > > >> >> to/from > > > >> >> > >> backup > > > >> >> > >>>> set, etc > > > >> >> > >>>> > > > >> >> > >>>> In the current implementation, the feature is already > > usable, > > > >> >> meaning > > > >> >> > >> that > > > >> >> > >>>> users can backup tables and restore them using provided > > > >> >> command-line > > > >> >> > >> tools. > > > >> >> > >>>> Both: full and incremental backups are supported. > > > >> >> > >>>> This work is based on original work of IBM team > > (HBASE-7912). > > > >> The > > > >> >> full > > > >> >> > >> list > > > >> >> > >>>> of JIRAs included in this mega patch can be found in three > > > >> umbrella > > > >> >> > >> JIRAs: > > > >> >> > >>>> HBASE-14030 (Phase 1), HBASE-14123 (Phase 2) and > HBASE-14414 > > > >> >> (Phase 3 > > > >> >> > - > > > >> >> > >> all > > > >> >> > >>>> resolved ones made it into the patch) > > > >> >> > >>>> > > > >> >> > >>>> *** What are the remaining work items > > > >> >> > >>>> > > > >> >> > >>>> All remaining items can be found in Phase 3 umbrella JIRA: > > > >> >> > HBASE-14414. > > > >> >> > >>>> They are split into 3 groups: BLOCKER, CRITICAL, MAJOR > > > >> >> > >>>> Only BLOCKERs and CRITICALs are guaranteed for HBase 2.0 > > > >> release. > > > >> >> > >>>> > > > >> >> > >>>> ***** BLOCKER > > > >> >> > >>>> > > > >> >> > >>>> * HBASE-14417 Incremental backup and bulk loading ( Patch > > > >> >> available) > > > >> >> > >>>> * HBASE-14135 HBase Backup/Restore Phase 3: Merge backup > > > images > > > >> >> > >>>> * HBASE-14141 HBase Backup/Restore Phase 3: Filter WALs on > > > >> backup > > > >> >> to > > > >> >> > >>>> include only edits from backup tables (Patch available) > > > >> >> > >>>> * HBASE-17133 Backup documentation > > > >> >> > >>>> * HBASE-15227 Fault tolerance support > > > >> >> > >>>> > > > >> >> > >>>> ***** CRITICAL > > > >> >> > >>>> > > > >> >> > >>>> * HBASE-16465 Disable split/merges during backup > > > >> >> > >>>> > > > >> >> > >>>> We have umbrella JIRA (HBASE-14414) to track all the > > remaining > > > >> work > > > >> >> > >>>> All the BLOCKER and CRITICAL JIRAs currently in open state > > > will > > > >> be > > > >> >> > >>>> implemented by 2.0 release time. Some MAJOR too, but it > > > depends > > > >> on > > > >> >> > >> resource > > > >> >> > >>>> availability > > > >> >> > >>>> The former development branch (HBASE-7912) is obsolete and > > > will > > > >> be > > > >> >> > >>>> closed/deleted after the merge. > > > >> >> > >>>> We want backup to be a GA feature in 2.0 > > > >> >> > >>>> We are going to support full backward compatibility for > > backup > > > >> >> tool in > > > >> >> > >> 2.0 > > > >> >> > >>>> and onwards. > > > >> >> > >>>> > > > >> >> > >>>> **** Configuration > > > >> >> > >>>> > > > >> >> > >>>> Backup is disabled, by default. To enable it, the > following > > > >> >> > >> configuration > > > >> >> > >>>> properties must be added to hbase-site.xml: > > > >> >> > >>>> > > > >> >> > >>>> hbase.backup.enable=true > > > >> >> > >>>> hbase.master.logcleaner.plugins=YOUR_PLUGINS,org. > > > >> >> > >>>> apache.hadoop.hbase.backup.master.BackupLogCleaner > > > >> >> > >>>> hbase.procedure.master.classes=YOUR_CLASSES,org. > > > >> >> > >>>> apache.hadoop.hbase.backup.master. > > > LogRollMasterProcedureManager > > > >> >> > >>>> hbase.procedure.regionserver.classes=YOUR_CLASSES,org. > > > >> >> > >>>> apache.hadoop.hbase.backup.regionserver. > > > >> >> > LogRollRegionServerProcedureMa > > > >> >> > >>>> nager > > > >> >> > >>>> > > > >> >> > >>>> > > > >> >> > >>>> I would like to thank IBM team and Jerry He for original > > work, > > > >> >> > >>>> > > > >> >> > >>>> Enis, Ted, Stack, Matteo, Jerry for time spent on code > > reviews > > > >> >> > >>>> > > > >> >> > >>>> Special thanks to Ted Yu for his co-development work. > > > >> >> > >>>> > > > >> >> > >>>> References: > > > >> >> > >>>> > > > >> >> > >>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-7912 > (original > > > IBM, > > > >> >> > >> contains > > > >> >> > >>>> design doc) > > > >> >> > >>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-14030 (Phase > 1) > > > >> >> > >>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-14123 (Phase > 2) > > > >> >> > >>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-14414 (Phase > 3) > > > >> >> > >>>> > > > >> >> > >>>> Please vote +1/-1 by midnight Pacific Time (00:00 > > > >> >> > >>>> -0800 GMT) on March 11th on whether or not we should > merge > > > >> this > > > >> >> into > > > >> >> > >> the > > > >> >> > >>>> current master. > > > >> >> > >>>> > > > >> >> > >>>> -Vladimir Rodionov > > > >> >> > >>>> > > > >> >> > >>> > > > >> >> > >>> > > > >> >> > >>> > > > >> >> > >>> -- > > > >> >> > >>> Best regards, > > > >> >> > >>> > > > >> >> > >>> - Andy > > > >> >> > >>> > > > >> >> > >>> If you are given a choice, you believe you have acted > > freely. - > > > >> >> Raymond > > > >> >> > >>> Teller (via Peter Watts) > > > >> >> > >> > > > >> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >> >> > > -- > > > >> >> > > Best regards, > > > >> >> > > > > > >> >> > > - Andy > > > >> >> > > > > > >> >> > > If you are given a choice, you believe you have acted > freely. - > > > >> >> Raymond > > > >> >> > > Teller (via Peter Watts) > > > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > >> >> > > > >> >> > > > >> >> -- > > > >> >> Best regards, > > > >> >> > > > >> >> - Andy > > > >> >> > > > >> >> If you are given a choice, you believe you have acted freely. - > > > Raymond > > > >> >> Teller (via Peter Watts) > > > >> >> > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
