This vote passed 24 hours deadline. We got 5 +1s and 1 -1. What is the path to move forward? Anything we (as feature developers) can do to revert the -1? As it blocks 2.4 release, I think we need a decision asap.
Thanks, Huaxiang On Wed, Nov 18, 2020 at 8:46 AM Andrew Purtell <andrew.purt...@gmail.com> wrote: > Let me refer you to the Foundation guidance on voting: > https://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html , and specifically the > section on vetos: > > A code-modification proposal may be stopped dead in its tracks by a -1 vote > by a qualified voter. This constitutes a veto, and it cannot be overruled > nor overridden by anyone. Vetos stand until and unless withdrawn by their > casters. To prevent vetos from being used capriciously, they must be > accompanied by a technical justification showing why the change is bad > (opens a security exposure, negatively affects performance, *etc.* ). A > veto without a justification is invalid and has no weight. > The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines 'capricious' as a sudden, > unpredictable, and impulsive act > <https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/caprice>. To guard against > this > kind of chaos in voting on technical matters, a technical veto must have a > clear and compelling reason. Neither on the earlier thread nor the JIRA is > a clear and compelling concern about the to-be-merged feature, clearly > communicated. A technical veto must also be accompanied with clear and > actionable feedback for the contributors, which in my view is also absent. > A veto because one participant in the discussion does not understand the > change or its motivation, or simply expresses an opinion that it is not > ideal and/or needed, is not a valid reason for a technical veto and > certainly does not provide actionable guidance for curing the veto. The > burden of the technical veto is not on the contributors to convince the > vetoing voter; the burden of proof is on the vetoing voter. > > In my view, as things stand the veto here is not yet valid but can be made > valid by offering the following: > > - A clear and compelling reason why the proposed change is harmful or > undesirable > - One or more clear and specific action items which would allow the > contributors to cure the reason for the veto > > Otherwise, the veto should be given no weight. > > To explain further my reason for concern, I have reviewed the discussion > thread and JIRA in question here and the reason given for veto seems to me > a relatively minor technical matter that can easily be cured, to the extent > it has been described (the reason is somewhat unclear), with a simple and > straightforward follow up. There is no blocking functional, performance, > regression, or security related reason. However we have a repeat of a > pattern of disagreement related to a personal problem between two > participants in the discussion, including the vetoing voter. > > > On Tue, Nov 17, 2020 at 8:03 PM Andrew Purtell <andrew.purt...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > I am concerned this is not a valid technical veto and it’s time for the > > PMC to take a more active role. This is poison to collaboration and it is > > affecting multiple people. > > > > > On Nov 17, 2020, at 5:43 PM, 张铎 <palomino...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > Hi, bring my -1 from the HEAD-UP thread, this is a veto. > > > > > > My concerns have not been fully resolved. Let's work it out on jira. > > > > > > Thanks. > > > > > > clara xiong <clarax98...@gmail.com> 于2020年11月18日周三 上午1:51写道： > > > > > >> +1 > > >> > > >>> On Tue, Nov 17, 2020 at 9:49 AM Huaxiang Sun <huaxiang...@gmail.com> > > >>> wrote: > > >>> > > >>> +1 > > >>> > > >>> On Tue, Nov 17, 2020 at 9:21 AM Bharath Vissapragada < > > >> bhara...@apache.org> > > >>> wrote: > > >>> > > >>>> +1. Reviewed the design doc and the consolidated patch, great > > >>> improvement, > > >>>> thanks for putting this together. > > >>>> > > >>>> On Tue, Nov 17, 2020 at 9:09 AM Stack <st...@duboce.net> wrote: > > >>>> > > >>>>> +1 > > >>>>> S > > >>>>> > > >>>>> On Tue, Nov 17, 2020 at 8:43 AM Stack <st...@duboce.net> wrote: > > >>>>> > > >>>>>> Please VOTE on whether to merge HBASE-18070 feature branch to > > >> master > > >>>> (and > > >>>>>> HBASE-18070.branch-2 to branch-2). The VOTE runs for 24 hours. The > > >>>>> majority > > >>>>>> prevails (+ or -). > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> Quoting the design lead-in: > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> Read Replicas on the hbase:meta Table currently only does > primitive > > >>>> read > > >>>>>> of the primary’s hfiles refreshing every (configurable) N seconds. > > >>> This > > >>>>>> issue is about making it so we can do the Async WAL Replication > > >>>>>> <http://hbase.apache.org/book.html#_asnyc_wal_replication> > > >> ability, > > >>>>>> currently only available for user-space Tables, against the > > >>> hbase:meta > > >>>>>> system Tables too; i.e. the primary replica pushes edits to its > > >>>> Replicas > > >>>>> so > > >>>>>> they run much closer to the primaries’ state. If clients could be > > >>>>> satisfied > > >>>>>> reading from Replicas, then we could have improved hbase:meta > > >> uptimes > > >>>> but > > >>>>>> also, we can distribute load off of the primary and alleviate > > >>>> hbase:meta > > >>>>>> Table (read) hotspotting. > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> Each PR that comprises the feature branch has been reviewed before > > >>>>> commit. > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> * For the design, see [2]. > > >>>>>> * For an amalgamated PR of the 5 or 6 reviewed PRs that comprise > > >>> this > > >>>>>> feature, see [3]. > > >>>>>> * For a PE report that compared performance before and after, see > > >>>>>> HBASE-25127 (no regression). > > >>>>>> * A report on ITBLL runs is pending to be attached to HBASE-18070 > > >>> but > > >>>>>> runs so far show no regression with the feature enabled (ITBLL > runs > > >>>> were > > >>>>>> done against a backport of this feature to branch-2 as the ITBLL > > >>> state > > >>>> of > > >>>>>> master is currently an unknown). > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> Testing continues mainly looking for further improvement and to > > >>> better > > >>>>>> understand this feature in operation. Documentation is included. > > >>> There > > >>>>> are > > >>>>>> some follow-ons that have been identified but these can land > later. > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> Thanks and thanks to all who contributed to this feature; the > > >>> reviewers > > >>>>>> and the testers in particular. > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> S > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> 1. http://hbase.apache.org/book.html#_asnyc_wal_replication > > >>>>>> 2. > > >>>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>> > > >>> > > >> > > > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1jJWVc-idHhhgL4KDRpjMsQJKCl_NRaCLGiH3Wqwd3O8/edit# > > >>>>>> This patch is currently missing HBASE-25280, a bug found in > > >> testing. > > >>>>>> 3. https://github.com/apache/hbase/pull/2643 > > >>>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>> > > >>> > > >> > > > > > -- > Best regards, > Andrew > > Words like orphans lost among the crosstalk, meaning torn from truth's > decrepit hands > - A23, Crosstalk >
