I thought the problem with releasing 2.0 was that there were too many open features dragging along not coming to finish- AMv2 (biggest one), CP cleanup, B&R, etc. If it was not the case, it wouldn't have been 1 year between first alpha and GA, rather just few months.
That said, i don't mind new but hardened features which are already ready to ship (implementation only or not) going in minor version, but that's my personal opinion. But going too aggressive on that can indeed lead to the trap Josh mentioned above. For this particular change, my +1 was based on following aspects: - it's internal - moving ops procv2 framework (gives failure recovery, locking, etc) - Duo's reasoning - "....the synchronous guarantee is really a good thing for our replication related UTs..." and "For the replication peer tracking, it is the same problem. It is hard to do fencing with zk watcher since it is asynchronous, so the UTs are always kind of flakey in theoretical." That said, it's pending review. @Duo: As you know it's not possible to spend cycles on it right now - pending 2.0GA - can you please hold it off for few weeks (ideally, until GA + 2-3 weeks) which will give community (whoever interested, at least me..smile) a decent change to review it. Thanks -- Appy On Tue, Mar 13, 2018 at 1:02 AM, Josh Elser <els...@apache.org> wrote: > (Sorry for something other than just a vote) > > I worry seeing a "big" feature branch merge as us falling back into the > 1.x trap. Starting to backport features into 2.x will keep us delaying 3.0 > as we have less and less incentive to push to release 3.0 in a timely > manner. > > That said, I also don't want my worries to bar a feature which appears to > be related to implementation only (based on one high-level read of the > changes). Perhaps we need to re-think what is allowable for a Y release in > x.y.z... > > +1 for master (which already happened, maybe?) > +0 for branch-2 (simply because I haven't looked closely enough at > changes, can read through and try to change to +1 if you need the votes) > > > On 3/9/18 2:41 AM, 张铎(Duo Zhang) wrote: > >> Since branch-2.0 has been cut and branch-2 is now 2.1.0-SNAPSHOT, will >> merge branch HBASE-19397-branch-2 back to branch-2. >> >> 2018-01-10 9:20 GMT+08:00 张铎(Duo Zhang) <palomino...@gmail.com>: >> >> If branch-2.0 will be out soon then let's target this to 2.1. No problem. >>> >>> Thanks. >>> >>> 2018-01-10 1:28 GMT+08:00 Stack <st...@duboce.net>: >>> >>> On Mon, Jan 8, 2018 at 8:19 PM, 张铎(Duo Zhang) <palomino...@gmail.com> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> OK, let me merge it master first. And then create a HBASE-19397-branch-2 >>>>> which will keep rebasing with the newest branch-2 to see if it is >>>>> stable >>>>> enough. Since we can define this as a bug fix/refactoring rather than a >>>>> >>>> big >>>> >>>>> new feature, it is OK to integrate it at any time. If we think it is >>>>> >>>> stable >>>> >>>>> enough before cutting branch-2.0 then we can include it in the 2.0.0 >>>>> release, else let's include it in 2.1(Maybe we can backport it to 2.0 >>>>> later?). >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> I need to cut the Appy-suggested branch-2.0. Shout if >>>> HBASE-19397-branch-2 >>>> gets to be too much work and I'll do it sooner rather than later. Or, if >>>> easier on you, just say and I'll make the branch-2.0 now so you can just >>>> commit to branch-2 (branch-2.0 will become hbase2.0, branch-2 will >>>> become >>>> hbase2.1...). >>>> >>>> St.Ack >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Thanks all here. >>>>> >>>>> 2018-01-09 12:06 GMT+08:00 ashish singhi <ashish.sin...@huawei.com>: >>>>> >>>>> +1 to merge on master and 2.1. >>>>>> Great work. >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>> Ashish >>>>>> >>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>> From: 张铎(Duo Zhang) [mailto:palomino...@gmail.com] >>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2018 6:53 AM >>>>>> To: dev@hbase.apache.org >>>>>> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Merge branch HBASE-19397 back to master and >>>>>> >>>>> branch-2. >>>> >>>>> >>>>>> Anyway, if no objections on merging this into master, let's do it? So >>>>>> >>>>> that >>>>> >>>>>> we can start working on the follow-on features, such as table based >>>>>> replication storage, and synchronous replication, etc. >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks. >>>>>> >>>>>> 2018-01-09 7:19 GMT+08:00 Stack <st...@duboce.net>: >>>>>> >>>>>> On Mon, Jan 8, 2018 at 2:50 PM, 张铎(Duo Zhang) < >>>>>>> >>>>>> palomino...@gmail.com> >>>> >>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> This 'new' feature only changes DDL part, not the core part of >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> replication, >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> i.e, how to read wal entries and how to replicate it to the remote >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> cluster, >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> etc. And also there is no pb message/storage layout change, you >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> can >>>> >>>>> think of this as a big refactoring. Theoretically we even do not >>>>>>>> need to add >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> new >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> UTs for this feature, i.e, no extra stability works. The only >>>>>>>> visible change to users is that it may require more time on >>>>>>>> modifying peers in shell. So in general I think it is less hurt to >>>>>>>> include it in the coming release? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> And why I think it SHOULD be included in our 2.0 release is that, >>>>>>>> the synchronous guarantee is really a good thing for our >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> replication >>>> >>>>> related UTs. The correctness of the current Test***Replication >>>>>>>> usually depends >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> on a >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> flakey condition - we will not do a log rolling between the >>>>>>>> modification >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> on >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> zk and the actual loading of the modification on RS. And we have >>>>>>>> also >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> done >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> a hard work to cleanup the lockings in ReplicationSourceManager >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> and >>>> >>>>> add a fat comment to say why it should be synchronized in this >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> way. >>>> >>>>> In general, the new code is much easier to read, test and debug, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> and >>>> >>>>> also reduce the possibility of flakeyness, which could help us a >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> lot >>>> >>>>> when we start to stabilize our build. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Thanks. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> You see it as a big bug fix Duo? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Kind of. Just like the AM v1, we can do lots of fix to make it more >>>>>> stable, but we know that we can not fix all the problems since we >>>>>> >>>>> store >>>> >>>>> state in several places and it is a 'mission impossible' to make all >>>>>> >>>>> the >>>> >>>>> states stay in sync under every situation... So we introduce AM v2. >>>>>> For the replication peer tracking, it is the same problem. It is hard >>>>>> >>>>> to >>>> >>>>> do fencing with zk watcher since it is asynchronous, so the UTs are >>>>>> >>>>> always >>>>> >>>>>> kind of flakey in theoretical. And we depend on replication heavily at >>>>>> Xiaomi, it is always a pain for us. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> I'm late to review. Will have a look after beta-1 goes out. This >>>>>>> >>>>>> stuff >>>> >>>>> looks great from outside, especially distributed procedure framework >>>>>>> which we need all over the place. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> In general I have no problem w/ this in master and an hbase 2.1 (2.1 >>>>>>> could be soon after 2.0). Its late for big stuff in 2.0.... but let >>>>>>> >>>>>> me >>>> >>>>> take a looksee sir. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thanks sir. All the concerns here about whether we should merge this >>>>>> >>>>> into >>>> >>>>> 2.0 are reasonable, I know. Although I really want this in 2.0 >>>>>> >>>>> because I >>>> >>>>> believe it will help a lot for stabilizing, I'm OK with merge it to >>>>>> >>>>> 2.1 >>>> >>>>> only if you guys all think so. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> St.Ack >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 2018-01-09 4:53 GMT+08:00 Apekshit Sharma <a...@cloudera.com>: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Same questions as Josh's. >>>>>>>>> 1) We have RCs for beta1 now, which means only commits that can >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> go >>>> >>>>> in >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> are >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> bug fixes only. This change - although important, needed from >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> long >>>> >>>>> time >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> well done (testing, summary, etc) - seems rather very large to >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> get >>>> >>>>> into >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 2.0 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> now. Needs good justification why it has to be 2.1 instead of >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 2.0. >>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>>> -- Appy >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Mon, Jan 8, 2018 at 8:34 AM, Josh Elser <els...@apache.org> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> -0 From a general project planning point-of-view (not based on >>>>>>>>>> the technical merit of the code) I am uncomfortable about >>>>>>>>>> pulling in a >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> brand >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> new feature after we've already made one beta RC. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Duo -- can you expand on why this feature is so important that >>>>>>>>>> we >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> should >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> break our release plan? Are there problems that would make >>>>>>>>>> including >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> this >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> in a 2.1/3.0 unnecessarily difficult? Any kind of color you >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> can >>>> >>>>> provide >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> on >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> "why does this need to go into 2.0?" would be helpful. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On 1/6/18 1:54 AM, Duo Zhang wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-19397 >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> We aim to move the peer modification framework from zk >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> watcher >>>> >>>>> to procedure >>>>>>>>>>> v2 in this issue and the work is done now. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Copy the release note here: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Introduce 5 procedures to do peer modifications: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> AddPeerProcedure >>>>>>>>>>>> RemovePeerProcedure >>>>>>>>>>>> UpdatePeerConfigProcedure >>>>>>>>>>>> EnablePeerProcedure >>>>>>>>>>>> DisablePeerProcedure >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> The procedures are all executed with the following stage: >>>>>>>>>>>> 1. Call pre CP hook, if an exception is thrown then give up >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> 2. >>>> >>>>> Check whether the operation is valid, if not then give up 3. >>>>>>>>>>>> Update peer storage. Notice that if we have entered this >>>>>>>>>>>> stage, >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> then >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> we >>>>>>>>>>>> can not rollback any more. >>>>>>>>>>>> 4. Schedule sub procedures to refresh the peer config on >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> every >>>> >>>>> RS. >>>>>> >>>>>>> 5. Do post cleanup if any. >>>>>>>>>>>> 6. Call post CP hook. The exception thrown will be ignored >>>>>>>>>>>> since we >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> have >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> already done the work. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> The procedure will hold an exclusive lock on the peer id, so >>>>>>>>>>>> now >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> there >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> is >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> no concurrent modifications on a single peer. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> And now it is guaranteed that once the procedure is done, >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> the >>>> >>>>> peer modification has already taken effect on all RSes. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Abstracte a storage layer for replication peer/queue >>>>>>>>>>>> manangement, >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> refactored the upper layer to remove zk related >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> naming/code/comment. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Add pre/postExecuteProcedures CP hooks to >>>>>>>>>>>> RegionServerObserver, and >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> add >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> permission check for executeProcedures method which requires >>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> caller >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>>>> be system user or super user. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> On rolling upgrade: just do not do any replication peer >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> modifications >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> during the rolling upgrading. There is no pb/layout changes >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> on >>>> >>>>> the peer/queue storage on zk. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> And there are other benefits. >>>>>>>>>>> First, we have introduced a general procedure framework to >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> send >>>> >>>>> tasks >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> RS >>>>>>>>>>> and report the report back to Master. It can be used to >>>>>>>>>>> implement >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> other >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> operations such as ACL change. >>>>>>>>>>> Second, zk is used as a external storage now since we do not >>>>>>>>>>> depend >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> on >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> zk >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> watcher any more, it will be much easier to implement a >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> 'table >>>> >>>>> based' >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> replication peer/queue storage. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Please vote: >>>>>>>>>>> [+1] Agree >>>>>>>>>>> [-1] Disagree >>>>>>>>>>> [0] Neutral >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Thanks. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> -- Appy >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >>> >> -- -- Appy
