Just noticed that the links Alan sent out do explicitly require a formal
VOTE.
Incoming...
On 10/30/19 10:06 AM, Josh Elser wrote:
I am OK with Tephra and Omid committers becoming Phoenix committers. We
can send them a welcome package to remind them that Phoenix is a
"review-then-commit" community which assuages any fears I have. Agree on
not giving PMC membership immediately.
We can ask infra to just rename each of their repositories out of
"incubator" and into "phoenix (e.g. incubator-omid becomes phoenix-omid)
to match the infra conventions, and ask Infra to switch the LDAP
permissions to point at Phoenix group instead of the podlings/incubator
groups.
(with Phoenix VP hat on)
I think you're good to go, Alan. The only objection we've heard was a
weak one about not wasting Phoenix committers times (and the above plan
isn't a time sink on anyone). Our discussions meet my bar for lazy
consensus.
If anyone wants (or needs) to see an official VOTE, please holler and
I'll send a thread out.
- Josh
On 10/28/19 7:01 PM, Alan Gates wrote:
It sounds like the Phoenix community is on board, so the next step
will be to have votes in Tephra and Omid. Before I start votes there
I need some indication of how Phoenix will integrate the people in
Tephra and Omid. My suggestion is that you allow any committer on
Omid or Tephra to request to be a committer on Phoenix. This way
anyone who wants to continue to develop the technology can, while
those who have already moved away from the project won't be added to
Phoenix as inactive committers. I wouldn't put Tephra or Omid PPMC
members on the Phoenix PMC. They will be committers if they choose,
and from there they can become PMC members in time. This is just a
suggestion, feel free to modify or ignore it.
Once you build consensus around a proposal I'll start votes in Tephra
and Omid. Once those communities have ratified it the Phoenix PMC and
then the Incubator PMC will need to ratify it as well.
Alan.
On 2019/10/28 20:08:36, Geoffrey Jacoby <gjac...@apache.org> wrote:
+1. I agree with Vincent and James. So long as we support
transactions in
Phoenix, we're bound to keep at least one transaction manager
working, and
we'd need to contribute at least compatibility and bug fixes. That's
probably more easily done under our umbrella if the Omid and Tephra
communities have become inactive.
If we were sure that most of our users would use one over the other, we
could potentially just adopt one, but since they have different
strengths
and drawbacks, that might never be the case. (If I remember right, Lars
Hofhansl did some perf testing awhile back that showed Tephra better for
fewer, longer transactions and Omid better for more frequent short
ones.)
At least for now, probably better to take on both.
Geoffrey
On Fri, Oct 25, 2019 at 6:14 PM Vincent Poon <vincentp...@apache.org>
wrote:
+1
I don't think pulling these under Phoenix would change their volume of
activity in the near term.
However, when/if usage of transactions with Phoenix increases, we'd
want a
path forward to be able to make modifications where necessary to these
projects.
This seems the best way to ensure there's an expedient way to do that.
On Fri, Oct 25, 2019 at 10:36 AM James Taylor <jamestay...@apache.org>
wrote:
+1 to pulling these projects into Phoenix. We’ve already done some
work
in
those projects and so have some familiarity with them. We also have
some
overlap in the committers with Omid. At a minimum we’d need to
create new
compat modules when necessary for future HBase releases. The
alternative
would be to rip out the transaction support which would be a mistake
IMHO.
On Fri, Oct 25, 2019 at 8:08 AM Josh Elser <els...@apache.org> wrote:
I share your same hesitation. I'm worried about us adopting code that
no
one intends to actually maintain.
My immediate concern is whether adoption of these codebases would
impact
the PMC's ability to develop on Phoenix -- I think there's a path
forward to avoid that. Is that sufficient to say we "should" adopt
them?
I dunno.
On 10/24/19 5:37 PM, Andrew Purtell wrote:
Tephra and Omid are interesting in that they serve a similar
function
- a
transaction oracle - but scale differently per different choices in
design,
so one is more appropriate for some kinds of transactional workloads
vs
the
other. It's akin to secondary indexing, there is not an index type
that
fits all use cases. If you are going to consider one, you should
consider
both. That said my guess is you will find eventually one is the
'winner'
per second order measures like contributions or user issues. This
should
be
fine. As separate repositories they can move at their own speed and
only
consume bandwidth as usage and uptake actually demands.
For what it's worth I'd vote as PMC +0 on accepting these code
bases.
'+'
because Phoenix transactional indexes are a promising feature, and
could
be
compelling, and they need one of these transaction oracles. '0'
because
it
would be unfair to commit someone else's time. I'm not around here
much...
but may be around more going forward.
On Thu, Oct 24, 2019 at 10:14 AM Josh Elser <els...@apache.org>
wrote:
Hiya folks,
There's a discussion[1] on general@incubator about the Omid and
Tephra
podlings, their decrease in volume (commits, discussion, activity),
and
what to do about them. If you'd like to contribute to that
discussion,
please watch on general@incubator and the dev lists for those
podlings.
One idea that seems to have resonated was that the Phoenix PMC
could
"adopt" the codebases for Omid and Tephra.
While this is by no means a "done decision", but I thought it would
be
good for us to think about this, decide if it's something we think
we
want to entertain, and how would would technically do this.
As far as a PMC goes, we are allowed to have multiple projects
under
one
PMC. We could move the tephra and omid repositories under the
control
of
our PMC, and manage them just like we do phoenix,
phoenix-connectors,
phoenix-queryserver, etc.
Thankfully, with the work of the transaction abstraction layer, we
shouldn't be in any position where Phoenix development would get
"stuck"
by work that needed to be done in Omid or Tephra.
What do folks think? Is this a good idea? Do we have enough
interest
to
keep the codebases healthy?
- Josh
[1]
https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/692a030a27067c20b9228602af502199cd4d80eb0aa8ed6461ebe1ee@%3Cgeneral.incubator.apache.org%3E
