On Thu, Aug 17, 2017 at 12:45 PM, Mike Drob <[email protected]> wrote:
> I went ahead and tagged those as tentatively 2.0.0-alpha3 in jira so that > we can have them all in one place later. Folks can move additional issues > in and out as they see appropriate. > > Thanks M, S > On Thu, Aug 17, 2017 at 2:35 PM, Stack <[email protected]> wrote: > > > I put up the hbase-2.0.0-alpha2 release candidate. Please vote on it. > > > > For hbase-2.0.0-alpha3, the theme is solidifying API. I hope to get a > > release out in the next week or so. > > > > I did a weeding of 2.0.0 issues over the last day. If folks are > interested > > in helping out, below are the items I think we need done for alpha3 > (below > > are at least 'Critical' status, are API possibly altering items, and are > > absent those JIRAs that are making active progress, i.e. the HTD/HCD > revamp > > by Chia-Ping Tsai). A project NOT listed that needs doing is what Andrew > > did comparing 1.3. and 1.4 APIs > > > > * HBASE-18622 Mitigate compatibility concerns between branch-1 and > branch-2 > > This is to do what Andrew did between 1.3 and 1.4 branches only do it > > between branch-1 and branch-2. > > > > * HBASE-10462 Recategorize some of the client facing Public / Private > > interfaces > > This one is almost done. It could do with a finish, attention to the > items > > in last comment, and then our codebase could do with another sweep after > > the spirit of this issue since a bunch has gone in since the pass that > was > > the basis of this issue. > > > > * HBASE-10504 Define Replication Interface > > I was going to take a crack at this as part of the revamp forced by > > 'HBASE-15982 Interface ReplicationEndpoint extends Guava's Service' but > if > > anyone else is interested, be my guest. > > > > * HBASE-14996 Some more API cleanup for 2.0 > > Has a bunch of subtasks, some of which are being worked on. Needs > > finishing. > > > > * HBASE-14998 Unify synchronous and asynchronous methods in Admin and > > cleanup > > Needs a pass. Small issue I think. Could also look at new AsyncClient and > > make sure symmetry. > > > > * HBASE-15607 Remove PB references from Admin for 2.0 > > Predicated on result of an ongoing DISCUSSION thread but needs to be > done. > > > > Rolling upgrade will have implications for our API. Would be good to try > it > > and figure what needs fixup (as said above, according to trial by Sean, > we > > might not be too bad here): > > * HBASE-16060 1.x clients cannot access table state talking to 2.0 > cluster > > * HBASE-16550 Procedure v2 - Add AM compatibility for 2.x Master and 1.x > > RSs; i.e. support Rolling Upgrade from hbase-1 to -2. > > > > * HBASE-17442 Move most of the replication related classes to > hbase-server > > package > > The above would be good to do generally but it may make for ripples in > API > > so would be good to do now. > > > > * HBASE-18106 Redo ProcedureInfo and LockInfo > > Balazs is working on this. The idea is that we avoid adding two new types > > to our API, two types that are nought but curtailed, read-only views on > > internals. Input if you have time appreciated. > > > > * HBASE-18596 A hbase1 cluster should be able to replicate to a hbase2 > > cluster; verify > > Esteban is looking at this one > > > > * HBASE-9417 SecureBulkLoadEndpoint should be folded in core > > * HBASE-17143 Scan improvement > > > > Our Coprocessor Interface needs a tough edit. It exposes implementations > > marked audience Private and returns implementations rather than > Interfaces. > > In a few locations, we allow returning an alternate implementation > > altogether which is probably something we don't want a CP doing. To that > > end, the following issues started by Duo and Anoop need to be taken to > the > > finish line; ideally they'd have an owner: > > > > * HBASE-18169 Coprocessor fix and cleanup before 2.0.0 release <= The > > umbrella issue. > > * HBASE-18298 RegionServerServices Interface cleanup for CP expose > > * HBASE-16769 Deprecate/remove PB references from MasterObserver and > > RegionServerObserver > > > > > > Nice-to-haves: > > > > * HBASE-15284 Make TimeRange constructors IA.Private and remove unused > > TimeRange constructors > > > > * HBASE-10944 Remove all kv.getBuffer() and kv.getRow() references > existing > > in the code > > This is the end of an old long-running project moving up on to Cell > > Interface. We think it is done but for a few little items (deprecate KV > > methods in MR and provide Cell versions instead...) > > > > * HBASE-13271 Table#puts(List<Put>) operation is indeterminate; needs > > fixing > > > > * HBASE-13346 Clean up Filter package for post 1.0 > > > > * HBASE-14255 Simplify Cell creation post 1.0 > > * HBASE-14997 > > Move compareOp and Comparators out of filter to client package > > > > * HBASE-13740 Stop using Hadoop private interfaces > > > > What about: > > > > * HBASE-18601 Remove Htrace 3.2 > > As has been noted, the HTrace API is our 'trace' API. > > > > If interested in any of the above and you need a legup, just ask in the > > issue and I'll be by.... > > > > Thanks, > > St.Ack > > > > > > > > On Mon, Aug 14, 2017 at 10:54 AM, Stack <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Heads-up: > > > > > > I'm about to put up an hbase-2.0.0-alpha2 Release Candidate. Theme is > > > updated dependencies, reliance on relocated popular libs (guava, netty, > > > protobuf), purge of checked-in generated src, and > > master-carries-no-regions > > > by default. > > > > > > alpha3 I hope will follow soon after (end-of-August?). Its theme will > be > > > settling the APIs and compatibility (At first blush, we are not looking > > too > > > bad; our Sean ran some tests over weekend that have hbase-1 client > > running > > > against an hbase-2 cluster....). The Coprocessor Interface revamp > should > > be > > > done by alpha3 (i.e. returning Interfaces rather than Implementations, > > and > > > our shutdown of CPs accessing classes in hbase marked > InterfaceAudience). > > > We'll also have purged thirdparty classes from our API; e.g. guava 0.12 > > > Service showing through in our replication API and protobufs in Admin > > > Interface. On alpha3, we will have to do a bunch of outreach to make > sure > > > our downstreamers are up on what is coming down the pipe. > > > > > > Beta1 in mid-September? > > > > > > I encourage you to check out the items marked for hbase2: > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/projects/HBASE/versions/12327188 Edit > as > > > you see appropriate. Punt if you know the JIRA will not get any > attention > > > in next month or so. > > > > > > A bunch of issues marked blocker are unassigned. I'll leave them as is > > > another while but I'll boot them soon. > > > > > > While I have your attention: > > > > > > + I think we should leave thrift version at 0.9.3. Moving hbase thrift > to > > > 0.10.0 will break existing clients. The change is easy enough if folks > > need > > > to upgrade their hbase thrift. See HBASE-18591. > > > + Upgrade from 0.94 is disallowed. You have to get to 1.0 first > (0.98?). > > > > > > St.Ack > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 9:43 AM, Stack <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> On Tue, Aug 1, 2017 at 2:06 PM, Josh Elser <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> On 7/31/17 9:00 AM, Stack wrote: > > >>> > > >>>> On Mon, Jul 24, 2017 at 12:25 PM, Josh Elser<[email protected]> > > wrote: > > >>>> > > >>>> ... > > >>>>> > > >>>>> I like the idea of this also hitting 2.0 as it would make the > > feature a > > >>>>> bit more "real", but am obviously a little nervous (I have no > reason > > >>>>> to be > > >>>>> nervous though). I am pretty happy with the feature in terms of how > > >>>>> much it > > >>>>> is covered via testing. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-17748 > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> Sounds good to me. Whats involved? Backport? If so, +1 Josh. > > >>>> > > >>>> Last think on space quota says that need doc too. See 'Space Quota' > in > > >>>> here: > > >>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1WCsVlnHjJeKUcl7wHwqb4z9i > > >>>> Eu_ktczrlKHK8N4SZzs/edit#heading=h.wuw3a6jukzo5 > > >>>> Does this little section need an update Josh? > > >>>> > > >>>> Thanks, > > >>>> S > > >>>> > > >>> > > >>> Yep, just a couple of cherry-picks. Good test coverage and some docs > > >>> already included for 17748. Happy to put that on my plate if you're > > good > > >>> with it. I can reasonably assume that no one is against it :) > > >>> > > >>> I think I had knocked out docs for the "phase 1" stuff before we > merged > > >>> it in from the original feature branch. I'll double check and update > > the > > >>> gdoc. Perhaps this was just a timing thing. > > >>> > > >> > > >> Thanks Josh, > > >> S > > >> > > > > > > > > >
