Pause a moment Huaxiang and give some time for the PMC to talk in private a bit.
On Wed, Nov 18, 2020 at 12:44 PM Huaxiang Sun <huaxiang...@gmail.com> wrote: > > 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 Vetos stand until and unless withdrawn by their 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 > >
