I agree with Sergio but I'm not sure if current plan is to release HA functionality. If we plan to make it a release, we need to make sure sentry HA works with one of the versions of Hive where
1. Notification log implementation has the functionality that sentry needs. 2. Supports authorization V1. -Kalyan -Kalyan On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 10:34 AM, Sergio Pena <sergio.p...@cloudera.com> wrote: > Pointing the branch to master sounds good. > > I just have one concern regarding the Hive dependency that Sentry HA needs. > This new feature requires that the Hive version running with Sentry master > has HMS notification logs enabled. Hive 1.1.0 (currently officially > supported by Sentry 1.7) started this HMS notification feature but seems it > is unstable. At least I found a bug on Hive 1.1.0 that it might make Sentry > unusable with this version + others required fixes and improvements that > exist only on Hive 2.x. > > This bug is fixed on Hive 1.2.0: > HIVE-9501: DbNotificationListener doesn't include dbname in create > database notification and does not include tablename in create table > notification. > > To make things complicated, bumping Sentry to support Hive 1.2.0 is not an > easy task due to the new authorization v2 hooks that are used in Hive. See > the comments on the below SENTRY jira: > > SENTRY-1323: Bump the hive version to 1.2.0 > > So, my question is what would happen with the Sentry 1.x compatibility if > we do this switch from sentry-ha-redesign -> master? > > On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 3:45 AM, Colm O hEigeartaigh <cohei...@apache.org> > wrote: > > > OK thanks, sounds good to me then. Let's try and do development work on > > master from now on though... > > > > Colm. > > > > On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 2:14 AM, Alexander Kolbasov <ak...@cloudera.com> > > wrote: > > > > > FYI, I contacted Colin Ma who was working on the refactoring and he was > > Ok > > > with skipping this change for 1.8. That said, the refactoring was done > > for > > > a reason it we should get back to it post 1.8, > > > > > > - Alex > > > > > > On Mon, Apr 17, 2017 at 5:51 PM Hao Hao <hao....@cloudera.com> wrote: > > > > > > > The proposal is good to me as well. Should we start a vote on this? > Or > > we > > > > can just start to do it if no one is objecting? > > > > > > > > Best, > > > > Hao > > > > > > > > On Mon, Apr 17, 2017 at 4:42 PM, Vamsee Yarlagadda < > > vam...@cloudera.com> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Cherry-pick any commits that happened since sentry-ha-redesign > was > > > > > forked, > > > > > > except a few described below > > > > > > Exclude big refactoring commit (SENTRY-1205) and related commits > > > > > > (SENTRY-1436, SENTRY-1438, SENTRY-1406) > > > > > > Rename master to a dev branch > > > > > > Rename sentry-ha-redesign to master > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This sounds good to me. Generally having merge commits complicates > > the > > > > git > > > > > history and might get tricky when we are debugging things. I would > > > rather > > > > > stick with the approach of cherry-picks to make the history clear. > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > Vamsee > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 7:17 PM, Alexander Kolbasov < > > ak...@cloudera.com > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > I would like to make a more concrete proposal and I am interested > > in > > > > > > opinion from Sentry PMC members on this. > > > > > > > > > > > > I would propose the following approach for merging Sentry HA into > > > > Sentry > > > > > > master: > > > > > > > > > > > > Cherry-pick any commits that happened since sentry-ha-redesign > was > > > > > forked, > > > > > > except a few described below > > > > > > Exclude big refactoring commit (SENTRY-1205) and related commits > > > > > > (SENTRY-1436, SENTRY-1438, SENTRY-1406) > > > > > > Rename master to a dev branch > > > > > > Rename sentry-ha-redesign to master > > > > > > > > > > > > What does community think about such approach? > > > > > > > > > > > > - Alex > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mar 22, 2017, at 1:43 PM, Alexander Kolbasov < > > > ak...@cloudera.com> > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hello, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I would like to start the discussion on merging > > sentry-ha-redesign > > > > > > branch with master. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As of now most of the changes from master are merged into > > > > > > sentry-ha-redesign. The major missing part is SENTRY-1205 > (Refactor > > > the > > > > > > code for sentry-provider-db and create sentry-service module) and > > > > > > associated issues. This refactoring is very hard to port, > > especially > > > > > since > > > > > > there is very little information in the JIRA on why it was done > and > > > how > > > > > it > > > > > > was done - was it merely moving files around or more then that. I > > > would > > > > > > seriously consider not including this change in 1.8. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So in regards to the merge we have several options: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Attempt to merge master into sentry-ha-redesign, resolve any > > > > conflicts > > > > > > and later commit the merge to master. This will cause merge > commit > > on > > > > > master > > > > > > > Finish work on sentry-ha-redesign, make sure that relevant > > commits > > > > are > > > > > > ported from master, and then making this a master branch and > making > > > > > current > > > > > > master a special branch left for reference purposes. This will > > likely > > > > > leave > > > > > > SENTRY-1205 and related issues out. > > > > > > > What does community think about this? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - Alex > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > Vamsee > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Colm O hEigeartaigh > > > > Talend Community Coder > > http://coders.talend.com > > >
