[jira] [Created] (HBASE-11234) FastDiffDeltaEncoder#getFirstKeyInBlock returns wrong result

[chunhui shen (JIRA)]

chunhui shen created HBASE-11234:


 Summary: FastDiffDeltaEncoder#getFirstKeyInBlock returns wrong 
result
 Key: HBASE-11234
 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-11234
 Project: HBase
  Issue Type: Bug
Reporter: chunhui shen
Assignee: chunhui shen
Priority: Critical
 Fix For: 0.99.0


As Ted found, 
{format}
With this change:

Index: 
hbase-server/src/test/java/org/apache/hadoop/hbase/regionserver/TestReversibleScanners.java
===
--- 
hbase-server/src/test/java/org/apache/hadoop/hbase/regionserver/TestReversibleScanners.java
 (revision 1596579)
+++ 
hbase-server/src/test/java/org/apache/hadoop/hbase/regionserver/TestReversibleScanners.java
 (working copy)
@@ -51,6 +51,7 @@
 import org.apache.hadoop.hbase.filter.FilterList.Operator;
 import org.apache.hadoop.hbase.filter.PageFilter;
 import org.apache.hadoop.hbase.filter.SingleColumnValueFilter;
+import org.apache.hadoop.hbase.io.encoding.DataBlockEncoding;
 import org.apache.hadoop.hbase.io.hfile.CacheConfig;
 import org.apache.hadoop.hbase.io.hfile.HFileContext;
 import org.apache.hadoop.hbase.io.hfile.HFileContextBuilder;
@@ -90,6 +91,7 @@
 CacheConfig cacheConf = new CacheConfig(TEST_UTIL.getConfiguration());
 HFileContextBuilder hcBuilder = new HFileContextBuilder();
 hcBuilder.withBlockSize(2 * 1024);
+hcBuilder.withDataBlockEncoding(DataBlockEncoding.FAST_DIFF);
 HFileContext hFileContext = hcBuilder.build();
 StoreFile.Writer writer = new StoreFile.WriterBuilder(
 TEST_UTIL.getConfiguration(), cacheConf, fs).withOutputDir(

I got:

java.lang.AssertionError: 
expected: but 
was:
  at org.junit.Assert.fail(Assert.java:88)
  at org.junit.Assert.failNotEquals(Assert.java:743)
  at org.junit.Assert.assertEquals(Assert.java:118)
  at org.junit.Assert.assertEquals(Assert.java:144)
  at 
org.apache.hadoop.hbase.regionserver.TestReversibleScanners.seekTestOfReversibleKeyValueScanner(TestReversibleScanners.java:533)
  at 
org.apache.hadoop.hbase.regionserver.TestReversibleScanners.testReversibleStoreFileScanner(TestReversibleScanners.java:108)
{format}


After debugging, it seems the method of FastDiffDeltaEncoder#getFirstKeyInBlock 
become broken. And it will cause hfilescanner#seekBefore returns wrong result.


The solution is simple, see the patch.



--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.2#6252)

Re: [DISCUSSION] Update on HBASE-10070 / Merge into trunk

[Nick Dimiduk]

I'm in favor of integration into trunk sooner than later (it's overdue,
IMHO).


On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 6:42 PM, Devaraj Das  wrote:

> +1 for merge to trunk now.
>
> On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 5:08 PM, Enis Söztutar  wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > We would like to give an update on the status of HBASE-10070 work, and
> open
> > up discussion for how we can do further development.
> >
> > We seem to be at a point where we have the core functionality of the
> > region replica, as described in HBASE-10070 working. As pointed out
> > under the section "Development Phases" in the design doc posted on the
> > jira HBASE-10070, this work was divided into two broad phases. The first
> > phase introduces region replicas concept, the new consistency model, and
> > corresponding RPC implementations. All of the issues for Phase 1 can be
> > found under [3]. Phase 2 is still in the works, and contains the proposed
> > changes listed under [4].
> >
> > With all the issues committed in HBASE-10070 branch in svn, we think that
> > the "phase-1" is complete. The user documentation on HBASE-10513 gives an
> > accurate picture of what has been done in phase-1 and what the impact of
> > using this feature is, APIs etc. We have added
> > a couple of IT tests as part of this work and we have tested the work
> > we did in "phase-1" of the project quite extensively in Hortonworks'
> > infrastructure.
> >
> > In summary, with the code in branch, you can create tables with region
> > replicas, do gets / multi gets and scans using TIMELINE consistency with
> > high availability. Region replicas periodically scan the files of the
> > primary and pick up flushed / committed files. The RPC paths /
> assignment,
> > balancing etc are pretty stable. However some more performance analysis
> and
> > tuning is needed. More information can be found in [1] and [2].
> >
> >
> > As a reminder, the development has been happening in the branch -
> > hbase-10070 (https://github.com/apache/hbase/tree/hbase-10070). We have
> > been pretty diligent about more than one committer's +1 on the branch
> > commits and for almost all the subtasks in HBASE-10070 there is more than
> > one +1 except for test fix issues or more trivial issues, where there
> maybe
> >  only one +1.  Enis/Nicolas/Sergey/Devaraj/Nick are the main contributors
> > of code in the phase-1 and many patches have been reviewed already by
> > people outside
> > this group (mainly Stack, Jimmy)
> >
> > For Phase 2, we think that we can deliver on the proposed design
> > incrementally over the next couple of months. However, we think that it
> > might be ok to merge the changes from phase 1 first, then do a
> > commit-as-you-go approach for remaining items. Therefore, we would like
> to
> > propose  to merge the branch to trunk, and continue the work over there.
> > This might also result in more reviews.
> >
> > Alternatively, we can continue the work in the branch, and do the merge
> at
> > the end of Phase 2, but that will make the review process a bit more
> > tricky, which is why we would like the merge sooner.
> >
> > What do you think? Comments, concerns?
> >
> > [1]
> >
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/attachment/12644237/hbase-10513_v1.patch
> > [2]
> >
> http://www.slideshare.net/enissoz/hbase-high-availability-for-reads-with-time
> > [3] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-10070
> > [4] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-11183
> >
> > Thanks,
>
> --
> CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE
> NOTICE: This message is intended for the use of the individual or entity to
> which it is addressed and may contain information that is confidential,
> privileged and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader
> of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that
> any printing, copying, dissemination, distribution, disclosure or
> forwarding of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have
> received this communication in error, please contact the sender immediately
> and delete it from your system. Thank You.
>

Re: HBase Git checkout

[Kashif Jawed Siddiqui]

Hi,

I am not able to checkout the code from github (using TortoiseGit in 
Windows). Any clue why ? Any access permissions required ?

git.exe clone  --recursive--progress -v  
"https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf/hbase.git"; 
"D:\HADOOP\hbase\GIT\apache.svn.latest.trunk\hbase"

Re: HBase Git checkout

[Bharath Vissapragada]

Hey,

It works for me. Alternatively you can try from
https://github.com/apache/hbase.git as well (mirror),

- Bharath


On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 4:27 PM, Kashif Jawed Siddiqui
wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I am not able to checkout the code from github (using TortoiseGit
> in Windows). Any clue why ? Any access permissions required ?
>
> git.exe clone  --recursive--progress -v  "
> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf/hbase.git";
> "D:\HADOOP\hbase\GIT\apache.svn.latest.trunk\hbase"
>
>
>


-- 
Bharath Vissapragada

[jira] [Created] (HBASE-11235) Backport fix for HBASE-11212 - Fix increment index in KeyValueSortReducer

[Gustavo Anatoly (JIRA)]

Gustavo Anatoly created HBASE-11235:
---

 Summary: Backport fix for HBASE-11212 - Fix increment index in 
KeyValueSortReducer
 Key: HBASE-11235
 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-11235
 Project: HBase
  Issue Type: Bug
Reporter: Gustavo Anatoly
Assignee: Gustavo Anatoly
Priority: Minor
 Fix For: 0.94.20


Fix increment index reported on to version 0.94: 
[https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-11212] 

{code}
 int index = 0;
for (KeyValue kv: map) {
  context.write(row, kv);
  if (index > 0 && index % 100 == 0) context.setStatus("Wrote " + index);
}
{code}





--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.2#6252)

Re: [DISCUSSION] Update on HBASE-10070 / Merge into trunk

[Andrew Purtell]

I would be in favor of a merge to trunk, but next week some time after all
issues slated for the 0.98.3 release have been committed through trunk.
Otherwise the rebasing, new review, and probable new test failures would
mean the RC misses the deadline significantly.


On Wednesday, May 21, 2014, Enis Söztutar  wrote:

> Hi,
>
> We would like to give an update on the status of HBASE-10070 work, and open
> up discussion for how we can do further development.
>
> We seem to be at a point where we have the core functionality of the
> region replica, as described in HBASE-10070 working. As pointed out
> under the section "Development Phases" in the design doc posted on the
> jira HBASE-10070, this work was divided into two broad phases. The first
> phase introduces region replicas concept, the new consistency model, and
> corresponding RPC implementations. All of the issues for Phase 1 can be
> found under [3]. Phase 2 is still in the works, and contains the proposed
> changes listed under [4].
>
> With all the issues committed in HBASE-10070 branch in svn, we think that
> the "phase-1" is complete. The user documentation on HBASE-10513 gives an
> accurate picture of what has been done in phase-1 and what the impact of
> using this feature is, APIs etc. We have added
> a couple of IT tests as part of this work and we have tested the work
> we did in "phase-1" of the project quite extensively in Hortonworks'
> infrastructure.
>
> In summary, with the code in branch, you can create tables with region
> replicas, do gets / multi gets and scans using TIMELINE consistency with
> high availability. Region replicas periodically scan the files of the
> primary and pick up flushed / committed files. The RPC paths / assignment,
> balancing etc are pretty stable. However some more performance analysis and
> tuning is needed. More information can be found in [1] and [2].
>
>
> As a reminder, the development has been happening in the branch -
> hbase-10070 (https://github.com/apache/hbase/tree/hbase-10070). We have
> been pretty diligent about more than one committer's +1 on the branch
> commits and for almost all the subtasks in HBASE-10070 there is more than
> one +1 except for test fix issues or more trivial issues, where there maybe
>  only one +1.  Enis/Nicolas/Sergey/Devaraj/Nick are the main contributors
> of code in the phase-1 and many patches have been reviewed already by
> people outside
> this group (mainly Stack, Jimmy)
>
> For Phase 2, we think that we can deliver on the proposed design
> incrementally over the next couple of months. However, we think that it
> might be ok to merge the changes from phase 1 first, then do a
> commit-as-you-go approach for remaining items. Therefore, we would like to
> propose  to merge the branch to trunk, and continue the work over there.
> This might also result in more reviews.
>
> Alternatively, we can continue the work in the branch, and do the merge at
> the end of Phase 2, but that will make the review process a bit more
> tricky, which is why we would like the merge sooner.
>
> What do you think? Comments, concerns?
>
> [1]
>
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/attachment/12644237/hbase-10513_v1.patch
> [2]
>
> http://www.slideshare.net/enissoz/hbase-high-availability-for-reads-with-time
> [3] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-10070
> [4] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-11183
>
> Thanks,
>


-- 
Best regards,

   - Andy

Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet Hein
(via Tom White)

Re: tables are not storing

[sravan008]

Hi , 

Version is 0.92.1 .

I'm a newbie to hbase ,Please guide me what to do in the scenario .



--
View this message in context: 
http://apache-hbase.679495.n3.nabble.com/tables-are-not-storing-tp4059458p4059523.html
Sent from the HBase Developer mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

Re: [DISCUSSION] Update on HBASE-10070 / Merge into trunk

[Jimmy Xiang]

I remember there are some public interface changes. What's the story about
compatibility and rolling upgrade?




On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 8:19 AM, Andrew Purtell  wrote:

> I would be in favor of a merge to trunk, but next week some time after all
> issues slated for the 0.98.3 release have been committed through trunk.
> Otherwise the rebasing, new review, and probable new test failures would
> mean the RC misses the deadline significantly.
>
>
> On Wednesday, May 21, 2014, Enis Söztutar  wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > We would like to give an update on the status of HBASE-10070 work, and
> open
> > up discussion for how we can do further development.
> >
> > We seem to be at a point where we have the core functionality of the
> > region replica, as described in HBASE-10070 working. As pointed out
> > under the section "Development Phases" in the design doc posted on the
> > jira HBASE-10070, this work was divided into two broad phases. The first
> > phase introduces region replicas concept, the new consistency model, and
> > corresponding RPC implementations. All of the issues for Phase 1 can be
> > found under [3]. Phase 2 is still in the works, and contains the proposed
> > changes listed under [4].
> >
> > With all the issues committed in HBASE-10070 branch in svn, we think that
> > the "phase-1" is complete. The user documentation on HBASE-10513 gives an
> > accurate picture of what has been done in phase-1 and what the impact of
> > using this feature is, APIs etc. We have added
> > a couple of IT tests as part of this work and we have tested the work
> > we did in "phase-1" of the project quite extensively in Hortonworks'
> > infrastructure.
> >
> > In summary, with the code in branch, you can create tables with region
> > replicas, do gets / multi gets and scans using TIMELINE consistency with
> > high availability. Region replicas periodically scan the files of the
> > primary and pick up flushed / committed files. The RPC paths /
> assignment,
> > balancing etc are pretty stable. However some more performance analysis
> and
> > tuning is needed. More information can be found in [1] and [2].
> >
> >
> > As a reminder, the development has been happening in the branch -
> > hbase-10070 (https://github.com/apache/hbase/tree/hbase-10070). We have
> > been pretty diligent about more than one committer's +1 on the branch
> > commits and for almost all the subtasks in HBASE-10070 there is more than
> > one +1 except for test fix issues or more trivial issues, where there
> maybe
> >  only one +1.  Enis/Nicolas/Sergey/Devaraj/Nick are the main contributors
> > of code in the phase-1 and many patches have been reviewed already by
> > people outside
> > this group (mainly Stack, Jimmy)
> >
> > For Phase 2, we think that we can deliver on the proposed design
> > incrementally over the next couple of months. However, we think that it
> > might be ok to merge the changes from phase 1 first, then do a
> > commit-as-you-go approach for remaining items. Therefore, we would like
> to
> > propose  to merge the branch to trunk, and continue the work over there.
> > This might also result in more reviews.
> >
> > Alternatively, we can continue the work in the branch, and do the merge
> at
> > the end of Phase 2, but that will make the review process a bit more
> > tricky, which is why we would like the merge sooner.
> >
> > What do you think? Comments, concerns?
> >
> > [1]
> >
> >
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/attachment/12644237/hbase-10513_v1.patch
> > [2]
> >
> >
> http://www.slideshare.net/enissoz/hbase-high-availability-for-reads-with-time
> > [3] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-10070
> > [4] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-11183
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
>
>
> --
> Best regards,
>
>- Andy
>
> Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet Hein
> (via Tom White)
>

Re: tables are not storing

[Ted Yu]

In 0.92, there is HBaseFsck (aka hbck) but it is very old - last fix was on
2012-09-09.

Can you run hbck to see if it reports any inconsistencies ?
When you search in master log, do you see names of old tables ?

Please consider upgrading your deployment to newer releases when you have a
chance.


On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 3:13 AM, sravan008  wrote:

> Hi ,
>
> Version is 0.92.1 .
>
> I'm a newbie to hbase ,Please guide me what to do in the scenario .
>
>
>
> --
> View this message in context:
> http://apache-hbase.679495.n3.nabble.com/tables-are-not-storing-tp4059458p4059523.html
> Sent from the HBase Developer mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>

Re: ANNOUNCEMENT: Git Migration In Progress (WAS => Re: Git Migration)

[Andrew Purtell]

Infra has closed the migration ticket.

I looked at tags for trunk/master and 0.98, and these look fine.

Unfortunately there are differences between SVN checkouts and Git
checkouts. SVN has changes on trunk/master and 0.98 that did not make it
over to Git looks like.

master/trunk: http://pastebin.com/dQ6SU2Dz

0.98: http://pastebin.com/Pvk3BH4i

0.96: Good!

0.94: Good!

0.89-fb​: Good!



On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 10:55 PM, Stack  wrote:

> Thanks T.
>
> The trunk test is still running fine.  Checkout local looks good too.  I
> tried a branch.  It seems right too.  Asking about discrepancy in the tag
> listings between the branches up in the INFRA issue.git.  Working on file
> compares of svn and git checkouts  Will report back.
>
> St.Ack
>
>
> On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 10:02 PM, Ted Yu  wrote:
>
> > I pointed trunk Jenkins job to git repo and triggered a build.
> >
> > So far the tests are running fine.
> >
> > FYI
> >
> >
> > On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 7:42 PM, Ted Yu  wrote:
> >
> > > I 'git clone'd master branch.
> > >
> > > Ran mvn package.
> > > Ran some tests.
> > > Checked 'git log'
> > >
> > > Looks Okay.
> > >
> > >
> > > On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 7:23 PM, Stack  wrote:
> > >
> > >> Migration looks done:
> > https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=hbase.git
> > >>
> > >> Next up is checking if it is all there.  I was going to check later
> this
> > >> evening but if anyone else wants to compare, that'd be grand.
> > >>
> > >> St.Ack
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 6:04 PM, Andrew Purtell 
> > >> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> > I also have done trunk first then cherry pick to branches.
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> > On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 4:19 PM, Enis Söztutar 
> > >> wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> > > > crew).  On feature branches, lets see.  Squash if messy history
> > >> (most
> > >> > > > cases?)?
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > One immediate example is HBASE-10070 branch. We wanted a smooth
> > >> merge, so
> > >> > > the branch history is clean and every commit traces to a jira
> (with
> > >> > reviews
> > >> > > etc).
> > >> > >
> > >> > > For "official" feature branches which will be pushed to the main
> > >> repo, I
> > >> > > think we should
> > >> > > require a similar thing. If people need a working branch with
> > >> less-clean
> > >> > > history, there is
> > >> > > no need to push that to the asf repo.
> > >> > >
> > >> > >
> > >> > > > The Accumulo doc makes for a good start [1] (ignoring where
> their
> > >> > > branching
> > >> > > > style is different to ours). It is informed by the Kafka
> > >> contributors
> > >> > > > workflow doc, also a good read [2]. When in doubt, do as we've
> > done
> > >> in
> > >> > > the
> > >> > > > past: e.g. adding patch to JIRA for hadoopqa run. Dump dev pains
> > and
> > >> > > > suggested solutions into this thread. Lets keep this thread
> alive
> > >> with
> > >> > > > issues we run into as a dev team and our (suggested) solutions.
> As
> > >> our
> > >> > > > practice diverges from that outline in docs above, lets note and
> > add
> > >> > doc
> > >> > > > locally?
> > >> > > >
> > >> > >
> > >> > > +1 for a local doc.
> > >> > > I like both of the documents. Kafka does not touch on merge
> between
> > >> > > branches at all. I used to do
> > >> > > commit-to-master than cherry-pick in the other branches (if
> > >> applicable)
> > >> > > otherwise create a different patch and commit approach rather
> > >> > > than merges across release branches. This is more similar to our
> svn
> > >> > model.
> > >> > >
> > >> > > I think for existing release branches, the merge is out of
> question
> > >> (if I
> > >> > > understand this correctly). We always did trunk-first than
> > cherry-pick
> > >> > into
> > >> > > branches approach, while Accumulo suggests that we do earlier
> branch
> > >> > first,
> > >> > > then merge into master. Since I don't have experience on this,
> > >> > > not sure whether that will work for us or not.
> > >> > >
> > >> > >
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > I need to heads-up our FB brothers and sisters too
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > St.Ack
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > 1. http://accumulo.apache.org/git.html
> > >> > > > 2.
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > >
> > >> > >
> > >> >
> > >>
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/Patch+submission+and+review#Patchsubmissionandreview-Simplecontributorworkflow
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > > Perhaps this has some useful formulae:
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > >
> > >> > >
> > >> >
> > >>
> >
> http://git-scm.com/book/en/Customizing-Git-An-Example-Git-Enforced-Policy
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 10:10 PM, Talat Uyarer <
> > ta...@uyarer.com>
> > >> > > wrote:
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > > Good news :)
> > >> > > > > > 21 May 2014 08:05 tarihinde "Stack" 
> yazdı:
> > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > SVN has been flipped read-only.  The migration to git has
> > >> > started.
> > >> > > >  See
> > >> > > > > >

[jira] [Created] (HBASE-11236) Last flushed sequence id is ignored by ServerManager

[Jimmy Xiang (JIRA)]

Jimmy Xiang created HBASE-11236:
---

 Summary: Last flushed sequence id is ignored by ServerManager
 Key: HBASE-11236
 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-11236
 Project: HBase
  Issue Type: Bug
Reporter: Jimmy Xiang
Assignee: Jimmy Xiang


HRegion.lastFlushSeqId is set to -1 at the beginning. So the first value master 
gets is a really a huge number instead since it is a uint64. That's why all 
valid last flushed sequence ids are ignored by the server manager.



--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.2#6252)

Re: ANNOUNCEMENT: Git Migration In Progress (WAS => Re: Git Migration)

[Ted Yu]

Andrew:
The diff shown in http://pastebin.com/Pvk3BH4i corresponds to HBASE-11219
which was integrated to master and 0.98 last night.

In my local git workspace for 0.98, I do see this change.

FYI


On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 9:28 AM, Andrew Purtell  wrote:

> Infra has closed the migration ticket.
>
> I looked at tags for trunk/master and 0.98, and these look fine.
>
> Unfortunately there are differences between SVN checkouts and Git
> checkouts. SVN has changes on trunk/master and 0.98 that did not make it
> over to Git looks like.
>
> master/trunk: http://pastebin.com/dQ6SU2Dz
>
> 0.98: http://pastebin.com/Pvk3BH4i
>
> 0.96: Good!
>
> 0.94: Good!
>
> 0.89-fb​: Good!
>
>
>
> On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 10:55 PM, Stack  wrote:
>
> > Thanks T.
> >
> > The trunk test is still running fine.  Checkout local looks good too.  I
> > tried a branch.  It seems right too.  Asking about discrepancy in the tag
> > listings between the branches up in the INFRA issue.git.  Working on file
> > compares of svn and git checkouts  Will report back.
> >
> > St.Ack
> >
> >
> > On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 10:02 PM, Ted Yu  wrote:
> >
> > > I pointed trunk Jenkins job to git repo and triggered a build.
> > >
> > > So far the tests are running fine.
> > >
> > > FYI
> > >
> > >
> > > On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 7:42 PM, Ted Yu  wrote:
> > >
> > > > I 'git clone'd master branch.
> > > >
> > > > Ran mvn package.
> > > > Ran some tests.
> > > > Checked 'git log'
> > > >
> > > > Looks Okay.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 7:23 PM, Stack  wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> Migration looks done:
> > > https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=hbase.git
> > > >>
> > > >> Next up is checking if it is all there.  I was going to check later
> > this
> > > >> evening but if anyone else wants to compare, that'd be grand.
> > > >>
> > > >> St.Ack
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 6:04 PM, Andrew Purtell <
> apurt...@apache.org>
> > > >> wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> > I also have done trunk first then cherry pick to branches.
> > > >> >
> > > >> >
> > > >> > On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 4:19 PM, Enis Söztutar <
> enis@gmail.com>
> > > >> wrote:
> > > >> >
> > > >> > > > crew).  On feature branches, lets see.  Squash if messy
> history
> > > >> (most
> > > >> > > > cases?)?
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > One immediate example is HBASE-10070 branch. We wanted a smooth
> > > >> merge, so
> > > >> > > the branch history is clean and every commit traces to a jira
> > (with
> > > >> > reviews
> > > >> > > etc).
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > For "official" feature branches which will be pushed to the main
> > > >> repo, I
> > > >> > > think we should
> > > >> > > require a similar thing. If people need a working branch with
> > > >> less-clean
> > > >> > > history, there is
> > > >> > > no need to push that to the asf repo.
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > > The Accumulo doc makes for a good start [1] (ignoring where
> > their
> > > >> > > branching
> > > >> > > > style is different to ours). It is informed by the Kafka
> > > >> contributors
> > > >> > > > workflow doc, also a good read [2]. When in doubt, do as we've
> > > done
> > > >> in
> > > >> > > the
> > > >> > > > past: e.g. adding patch to JIRA for hadoopqa run. Dump dev
> pains
> > > and
> > > >> > > > suggested solutions into this thread. Lets keep this thread
> > alive
> > > >> with
> > > >> > > > issues we run into as a dev team and our (suggested)
> solutions.
> > As
> > > >> our
> > > >> > > > practice diverges from that outline in docs above, lets note
> and
> > > add
> > > >> > doc
> > > >> > > > locally?
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > +1 for a local doc.
> > > >> > > I like both of the documents. Kafka does not touch on merge
> > between
> > > >> > > branches at all. I used to do
> > > >> > > commit-to-master than cherry-pick in the other branches (if
> > > >> applicable)
> > > >> > > otherwise create a different patch and commit approach rather
> > > >> > > than merges across release branches. This is more similar to our
> > svn
> > > >> > model.
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > I think for existing release branches, the merge is out of
> > question
> > > >> (if I
> > > >> > > understand this correctly). We always did trunk-first than
> > > cherry-pick
> > > >> > into
> > > >> > > branches approach, while Accumulo suggests that we do earlier
> > branch
> > > >> > first,
> > > >> > > then merge into master. Since I don't have experience on this,
> > > >> > > not sure whether that will work for us or not.
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > I need to heads-up our FB brothers and sisters too
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > St.Ack
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > 1. http://accumulo.apache.org/git.html
> > > >> > > > 2.
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > >
> > > >> >
> > > >>
> > >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/Patch+submission+and+review#Patchsubmissionandreview-Simplecontributorworkflow
> > > >> > > >

Re: ANNOUNCEMENT: Git Migration In Progress (WAS => Re: Git Migration)

[Andrew Purtell]

So someone made a commit to SVN **after** the migration was in progress??


On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 9:39 AM, Ted Yu  wrote:

> Andrew:
> The diff shown in http://pastebin.com/Pvk3BH4i corresponds to HBASE-11219
> which was integrated to master and 0.98 last night.
>
> In my local git workspace for 0.98, I do see this change.
>
> FYI
>
>
> On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 9:28 AM, Andrew Purtell 
> wrote:
>
> > Infra has closed the migration ticket.
> >
> > I looked at tags for trunk/master and 0.98, and these look fine.
> >
> > Unfortunately there are differences between SVN checkouts and Git
> > checkouts. SVN has changes on trunk/master and 0.98 that did not make it
> > over to Git looks like.
> >
> > master/trunk: http://pastebin.com/dQ6SU2Dz
> >
> > 0.98: http://pastebin.com/Pvk3BH4i
> >
> > 0.96: Good!
> >
> > 0.94: Good!
> >
> > 0.89-fb​: Good!
> >
> >
> >
> > On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 10:55 PM, Stack  wrote:
> >
> > > Thanks T.
> > >
> > > The trunk test is still running fine.  Checkout local looks good too.
>  I
> > > tried a branch.  It seems right too.  Asking about discrepancy in the
> tag
> > > listings between the branches up in the INFRA issue.git.  Working on
> file
> > > compares of svn and git checkouts  Will report back.
> > >
> > > St.Ack
> > >
> > >
> > > On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 10:02 PM, Ted Yu  wrote:
> > >
> > > > I pointed trunk Jenkins job to git repo and triggered a build.
> > > >
> > > > So far the tests are running fine.
> > > >
> > > > FYI
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 7:42 PM, Ted Yu  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > I 'git clone'd master branch.
> > > > >
> > > > > Ran mvn package.
> > > > > Ran some tests.
> > > > > Checked 'git log'
> > > > >
> > > > > Looks Okay.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 7:23 PM, Stack  wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >> Migration looks done:
> > > > https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=hbase.git
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Next up is checking if it is all there.  I was going to check
> later
> > > this
> > > > >> evening but if anyone else wants to compare, that'd be grand.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> St.Ack
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >> On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 6:04 PM, Andrew Purtell <
> > apurt...@apache.org>
> > > > >> wrote:
> > > > >>
> > > > >> > I also have done trunk first then cherry pick to branches.
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 4:19 PM, Enis Söztutar <
> > enis@gmail.com>
> > > > >> wrote:
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > > > crew).  On feature branches, lets see.  Squash if messy
> > history
> > > > >> (most
> > > > >> > > > cases?)?
> > > > >> > > >
> > > > >> > > >
> > > > >> > > One immediate example is HBASE-10070 branch. We wanted a
> smooth
> > > > >> merge, so
> > > > >> > > the branch history is clean and every commit traces to a jira
> > > (with
> > > > >> > reviews
> > > > >> > > etc).
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > > For "official" feature branches which will be pushed to the
> main
> > > > >> repo, I
> > > > >> > > think we should
> > > > >> > > require a similar thing. If people need a working branch with
> > > > >> less-clean
> > > > >> > > history, there is
> > > > >> > > no need to push that to the asf repo.
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > > > The Accumulo doc makes for a good start [1] (ignoring where
> > > their
> > > > >> > > branching
> > > > >> > > > style is different to ours). It is informed by the Kafka
> > > > >> contributors
> > > > >> > > > workflow doc, also a good read [2]. When in doubt, do as
> we've
> > > > done
> > > > >> in
> > > > >> > > the
> > > > >> > > > past: e.g. adding patch to JIRA for hadoopqa run. Dump dev
> > pains
> > > > and
> > > > >> > > > suggested solutions into this thread. Lets keep this thread
> > > alive
> > > > >> with
> > > > >> > > > issues we run into as a dev team and our (suggested)
> > solutions.
> > > As
> > > > >> our
> > > > >> > > > practice diverges from that outline in docs above, lets note
> > and
> > > > add
> > > > >> > doc
> > > > >> > > > locally?
> > > > >> > > >
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > > +1 for a local doc.
> > > > >> > > I like both of the documents. Kafka does not touch on merge
> > > between
> > > > >> > > branches at all. I used to do
> > > > >> > > commit-to-master than cherry-pick in the other branches (if
> > > > >> applicable)
> > > > >> > > otherwise create a different patch and commit approach rather
> > > > >> > > than merges across release branches. This is more similar to
> our
> > > svn
> > > > >> > model.
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > > I think for existing release branches, the merge is out of
> > > question
> > > > >> (if I
> > > > >> > > understand this correctly). We always did trunk-first than
> > > > cherry-pick
> > > > >> > into
> > > > >> > > branches approach, while Accumulo suggests that we do earlier
> > > branch
> > > > >> > first,
> > > > >> > > then merge into master. Since I don't have experience on this,
> > > > >> > > not sure whether that will work for us or not.
>

Re: ANNOUNCEMENT: Git Migration In Progress (WAS => Re: Git Migration)

[Anoop John]

No Andy. Those were commits to Git after the migration.

-Anoop-

On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 10:11 PM, Andrew Purtell wrote:

> So someone made a commit to SVN **after** the migration was in progress??
>
>
> On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 9:39 AM, Ted Yu  wrote:
>
> > Andrew:
> > The diff shown in http://pastebin.com/Pvk3BH4i corresponds to
> HBASE-11219
> > which was integrated to master and 0.98 last night.
> >
> > In my local git workspace for 0.98, I do see this change.
> >
> > FYI
> >
> >
> > On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 9:28 AM, Andrew Purtell 
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Infra has closed the migration ticket.
> > >
> > > I looked at tags for trunk/master and 0.98, and these look fine.
> > >
> > > Unfortunately there are differences between SVN checkouts and Git
> > > checkouts. SVN has changes on trunk/master and 0.98 that did not make
> it
> > > over to Git looks like.
> > >
> > > master/trunk: http://pastebin.com/dQ6SU2Dz
> > >
> > > 0.98: http://pastebin.com/Pvk3BH4i
> > >
> > > 0.96: Good!
> > >
> > > 0.94: Good!
> > >
> > > 0.89-fb​: Good!
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 10:55 PM, Stack  wrote:
> > >
> > > > Thanks T.
> > > >
> > > > The trunk test is still running fine.  Checkout local looks good too.
> >  I
> > > > tried a branch.  It seems right too.  Asking about discrepancy in the
> > tag
> > > > listings between the branches up in the INFRA issue.git.  Working on
> > file
> > > > compares of svn and git checkouts  Will report back.
> > > >
> > > > St.Ack
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 10:02 PM, Ted Yu 
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > I pointed trunk Jenkins job to git repo and triggered a build.
> > > > >
> > > > > So far the tests are running fine.
> > > > >
> > > > > FYI
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 7:42 PM, Ted Yu 
> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > I 'git clone'd master branch.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Ran mvn package.
> > > > > > Ran some tests.
> > > > > > Checked 'git log'
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Looks Okay.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 7:23 PM, Stack  wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >> Migration looks done:
> > > > > https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=hbase.git
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> Next up is checking if it is all there.  I was going to check
> > later
> > > > this
> > > > > >> evening but if anyone else wants to compare, that'd be grand.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> St.Ack
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 6:04 PM, Andrew Purtell <
> > > apurt...@apache.org>
> > > > > >> wrote:
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> > I also have done trunk first then cherry pick to branches.
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 4:19 PM, Enis Söztutar <
> > > enis@gmail.com>
> > > > > >> wrote:
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > > > crew).  On feature branches, lets see.  Squash if messy
> > > history
> > > > > >> (most
> > > > > >> > > > cases?)?
> > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > >> > > One immediate example is HBASE-10070 branch. We wanted a
> > smooth
> > > > > >> merge, so
> > > > > >> > > the branch history is clean and every commit traces to a
> jira
> > > > (with
> > > > > >> > reviews
> > > > > >> > > etc).
> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > >> > > For "official" feature branches which will be pushed to the
> > main
> > > > > >> repo, I
> > > > > >> > > think we should
> > > > > >> > > require a similar thing. If people need a working branch
> with
> > > > > >> less-clean
> > > > > >> > > history, there is
> > > > > >> > > no need to push that to the asf repo.
> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > >> > > > The Accumulo doc makes for a good start [1] (ignoring
> where
> > > > their
> > > > > >> > > branching
> > > > > >> > > > style is different to ours). It is informed by the Kafka
> > > > > >> contributors
> > > > > >> > > > workflow doc, also a good read [2]. When in doubt, do as
> > we've
> > > > > done
> > > > > >> in
> > > > > >> > > the
> > > > > >> > > > past: e.g. adding patch to JIRA for hadoopqa run. Dump dev
> > > pains
> > > > > and
> > > > > >> > > > suggested solutions into this thread. Lets keep this
> thread
> > > > alive
> > > > > >> with
> > > > > >> > > > issues we run into as a dev team and our (suggested)
> > > solutions.
> > > > As
> > > > > >> our
> > > > > >> > > > practice diverges from that outline in docs above, lets
> note
> > > and
> > > > > add
> > > > > >> > doc
> > > > > >> > > > locally?
> > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > >> > > +1 for a local doc.
> > > > > >> > > I like both of the documents. Kafka does not touch on merge
> > > > between
> > > > > >> > > branches at all. I used to do
> > > > > >> > > commit-to-master than cherry-pick in the other branches (if
> > > > > >> applicable)
> > > > > >> > > otherwise create a different patch and commit approach
> rather
> > > > > >> > > than merges across release branches. This is more similar to
> > our
> > > > svn
> > > > > >> > model.
> > > > > >> > >
> > > > >

Re: ANNOUNCEMENT: Git Migration In Progress (WAS => Re: Git Migration)

[Andrew Purtell]

Pardon, I may have reversed your meaning. Did you mean that HBASE-11219 was
committed to Git last night? I don't see an all clear sent to dev@


On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 9:41 AM, Andrew Purtell  wrote:

> So someone made a commit to SVN **after** the migration was in progress??
>
>
> On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 9:39 AM, Ted Yu  wrote:
>
>> Andrew:
>> The diff shown in http://pastebin.com/Pvk3BH4i corresponds to HBASE-11219
>> which was integrated to master and 0.98 last night.
>>
>> In my local git workspace for 0.98, I do see this change.
>>
>> FYI
>>
>>
>> On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 9:28 AM, Andrew Purtell 
>> wrote:
>>
>> > Infra has closed the migration ticket.
>> >
>> > I looked at tags for trunk/master and 0.98, and these look fine.
>> >
>> > Unfortunately there are differences between SVN checkouts and Git
>> > checkouts. SVN has changes on trunk/master and 0.98 that did not make it
>> > over to Git looks like.
>> >
>> > master/trunk: http://pastebin.com/dQ6SU2Dz
>> >
>> > 0.98: http://pastebin.com/Pvk3BH4i
>> >
>> > 0.96: Good!
>> >
>> > 0.94: Good!
>> >
>> > 0.89-fb​: Good!
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 10:55 PM, Stack  wrote:
>> >
>> > > Thanks T.
>> > >
>> > > The trunk test is still running fine.  Checkout local looks good too.
>>  I
>> > > tried a branch.  It seems right too.  Asking about discrepancy in the
>> tag
>> > > listings between the branches up in the INFRA issue.git.  Working on
>> file
>> > > compares of svn and git checkouts  Will report back.
>> > >
>> > > St.Ack
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 10:02 PM, Ted Yu  wrote:
>> > >
>> > > > I pointed trunk Jenkins job to git repo and triggered a build.
>> > > >
>> > > > So far the tests are running fine.
>> > > >
>> > > > FYI
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 7:42 PM, Ted Yu 
>> wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > > I 'git clone'd master branch.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Ran mvn package.
>> > > > > Ran some tests.
>> > > > > Checked 'git log'
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Looks Okay.
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > > On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 7:23 PM, Stack  wrote:
>> > > > >
>> > > > >> Migration looks done:
>> > > > https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=hbase.git
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >> Next up is checking if it is all there.  I was going to check
>> later
>> > > this
>> > > > >> evening but if anyone else wants to compare, that'd be grand.
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >> St.Ack
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >> On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 6:04 PM, Andrew Purtell <
>> > apurt...@apache.org>
>> > > > >> wrote:
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >> > I also have done trunk first then cherry pick to branches.
>> > > > >> >
>> > > > >> >
>> > > > >> > On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 4:19 PM, Enis Söztutar <
>> > enis@gmail.com>
>> > > > >> wrote:
>> > > > >> >
>> > > > >> > > > crew).  On feature branches, lets see.  Squash if messy
>> > history
>> > > > >> (most
>> > > > >> > > > cases?)?
>> > > > >> > > >
>> > > > >> > > >
>> > > > >> > > One immediate example is HBASE-10070 branch. We wanted a
>> smooth
>> > > > >> merge, so
>> > > > >> > > the branch history is clean and every commit traces to a jira
>> > > (with
>> > > > >> > reviews
>> > > > >> > > etc).
>> > > > >> > >
>> > > > >> > > For "official" feature branches which will be pushed to the
>> main
>> > > > >> repo, I
>> > > > >> > > think we should
>> > > > >> > > require a similar thing. If people need a working branch with
>> > > > >> less-clean
>> > > > >> > > history, there is
>> > > > >> > > no need to push that to the asf repo.
>> > > > >> > >
>> > > > >> > >
>> > > > >> > > > The Accumulo doc makes for a good start [1] (ignoring where
>> > > their
>> > > > >> > > branching
>> > > > >> > > > style is different to ours). It is informed by the Kafka
>> > > > >> contributors
>> > > > >> > > > workflow doc, also a good read [2]. When in doubt, do as
>> we've
>> > > > done
>> > > > >> in
>> > > > >> > > the
>> > > > >> > > > past: e.g. adding patch to JIRA for hadoopqa run. Dump dev
>> > pains
>> > > > and
>> > > > >> > > > suggested solutions into this thread. Lets keep this thread
>> > > alive
>> > > > >> with
>> > > > >> > > > issues we run into as a dev team and our (suggested)
>> > solutions.
>> > > As
>> > > > >> our
>> > > > >> > > > practice diverges from that outline in docs above, lets
>> note
>> > and
>> > > > add
>> > > > >> > doc
>> > > > >> > > > locally?
>> > > > >> > > >
>> > > > >> > >
>> > > > >> > > +1 for a local doc.
>> > > > >> > > I like both of the documents. Kafka does not touch on merge
>> > > between
>> > > > >> > > branches at all. I used to do
>> > > > >> > > commit-to-master than cherry-pick in the other branches (if
>> > > > >> applicable)
>> > > > >> > > otherwise create a different patch and commit approach rather
>> > > > >> > > than merges across release branches. This is more similar to
>> our
>> > > svn
>> > > > >> > model.
>> > > > >> > >
>> > > > >> > > I think for existing release branches, the merge is out of
>> > > question
>> > > >

Re: ANNOUNCEMENT: Git Migration In Progress (WAS => Re: Git Migration)

[Andrew Purtell]

That is unfortunate, because there was not an all clear sent to dev@. I
suppose we are "lucky" that otherwise the diffs are fine.  So I guess it's
open season on the Git repo then. Would have been nice for folks to have
waited for Stack or someone else to write back verifying file contents were
good.


On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 9:43 AM, Anoop John  wrote:

> No Andy. Those were commits to Git after the migration.
>
> -Anoop-
>
> On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 10:11 PM, Andrew Purtell  >wrote:
>
> > So someone made a commit to SVN **after** the migration was in progress??
> >
> >
> > On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 9:39 AM, Ted Yu  wrote:
> >
> > > Andrew:
> > > The diff shown in http://pastebin.com/Pvk3BH4i corresponds to
> > HBASE-11219
> > > which was integrated to master and 0.98 last night.
> > >
> > > In my local git workspace for 0.98, I do see this change.
> > >
> > > FYI
> > >
> > >
> > > On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 9:28 AM, Andrew Purtell 
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Infra has closed the migration ticket.
> > > >
> > > > I looked at tags for trunk/master and 0.98, and these look fine.
> > > >
> > > > Unfortunately there are differences between SVN checkouts and Git
> > > > checkouts. SVN has changes on trunk/master and 0.98 that did not make
> > it
> > > > over to Git looks like.
> > > >
> > > > master/trunk: http://pastebin.com/dQ6SU2Dz
> > > >
> > > > 0.98: http://pastebin.com/Pvk3BH4i
> > > >
> > > > 0.96: Good!
> > > >
> > > > 0.94: Good!
> > > >
> > > > 0.89-fb​: Good!
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 10:55 PM, Stack  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Thanks T.
> > > > >
> > > > > The trunk test is still running fine.  Checkout local looks good
> too.
> > >  I
> > > > > tried a branch.  It seems right too.  Asking about discrepancy in
> the
> > > tag
> > > > > listings between the branches up in the INFRA issue.git.  Working
> on
> > > file
> > > > > compares of svn and git checkouts  Will report back.
> > > > >
> > > > > St.Ack
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 10:02 PM, Ted Yu 
> > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > I pointed trunk Jenkins job to git repo and triggered a build.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > So far the tests are running fine.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > FYI
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 7:42 PM, Ted Yu 
> > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > I 'git clone'd master branch.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Ran mvn package.
> > > > > > > Ran some tests.
> > > > > > > Checked 'git log'
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Looks Okay.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 7:23 PM, Stack 
> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> Migration looks done:
> > > > > > https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=hbase.git
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> Next up is checking if it is all there.  I was going to check
> > > later
> > > > > this
> > > > > > >> evening but if anyone else wants to compare, that'd be grand.
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> St.Ack
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 6:04 PM, Andrew Purtell <
> > > > apurt...@apache.org>
> > > > > > >> wrote:
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> > I also have done trunk first then cherry pick to branches.
> > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > >> > On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 4:19 PM, Enis Söztutar <
> > > > enis@gmail.com>
> > > > > > >> wrote:
> > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > >> > > > crew).  On feature branches, lets see.  Squash if messy
> > > > history
> > > > > > >> (most
> > > > > > >> > > > cases?)?
> > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > >> > > One immediate example is HBASE-10070 branch. We wanted a
> > > smooth
> > > > > > >> merge, so
> > > > > > >> > > the branch history is clean and every commit traces to a
> > jira
> > > > > (with
> > > > > > >> > reviews
> > > > > > >> > > etc).
> > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > >> > > For "official" feature branches which will be pushed to
> the
> > > main
> > > > > > >> repo, I
> > > > > > >> > > think we should
> > > > > > >> > > require a similar thing. If people need a working branch
> > with
> > > > > > >> less-clean
> > > > > > >> > > history, there is
> > > > > > >> > > no need to push that to the asf repo.
> > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > >> > > > The Accumulo doc makes for a good start [1] (ignoring
> > where
> > > > > their
> > > > > > >> > > branching
> > > > > > >> > > > style is different to ours). It is informed by the Kafka
> > > > > > >> contributors
> > > > > > >> > > > workflow doc, also a good read [2]. When in doubt, do as
> > > we've
> > > > > > done
> > > > > > >> in
> > > > > > >> > > the
> > > > > > >> > > > past: e.g. adding patch to JIRA for hadoopqa run. Dump
> dev
> > > > pains
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > >> > > > suggested solutions into this thread. Lets keep this
> > thread
> > > > > alive
> > > > > > >> with
> > > > > > >> > > > issues we run into as a dev team and our (suggested)
> > > > solutions.
> > > > > As
> > > > > > >> our
> > > > > > >> > 

ANNOUCEMENT: Git Migration completed

[Andrew Purtell]

The migration from SVN to Git has completed and folks have begun committing
to the new repository already.

See https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=hbase.git

Clone from https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf/hbase.git


-- 
Best regards,

   - Andy

Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet Hein
(via Tom White)

[jira] [Resolved] (HBASE-11214) Fixes for scans on a replicated table

[Devaraj Das (JIRA)]

 [ 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-11214?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
 ]

Devaraj Das resolved HBASE-11214.
-

Resolution: Fixed

Committed to hbase-10070 branch. Thanks for the review, Enis.

> Fixes for scans on a replicated table
> -
>
> Key: HBASE-11214
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-11214
> Project: HBase
>  Issue Type: Sub-task
>Reporter: Devaraj Das
>Assignee: Devaraj Das
> Fix For: hbase-10070
>
> Attachments: 11214-1.txt, 11214-2.txt
>
>
> During testing with the IT in HBASE-10818, found an issue to do with how 
> "close" of scanners was handled. 



--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.2#6252)

Re: ANNOUNCEMENT: Git Migration In Progress (WAS => Re: Git Migration)

[Stack]

What Andy said.

I checked trunk and 0.96 branch content (compensating for above commits).
 I confirmed list of branches and tags are the same.

Thanks for sending the note saying repo is open again Andy.

St.Ack


On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 9:45 AM, Andrew Purtell  wrote:

> That is unfortunate, because there was not an all clear sent to dev@. I
> suppose we are "lucky" that otherwise the diffs are fine.  So I guess it's
> open season on the Git repo then. Would have been nice for folks to have
> waited for Stack or someone else to write back verifying file contents were
> good.
>
>
> On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 9:43 AM, Anoop John  wrote:
>
> > No Andy. Those were commits to Git after the migration.
> >
> > -Anoop-
> >
> > On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 10:11 PM, Andrew Purtell  > >wrote:
> >
> > > So someone made a commit to SVN **after** the migration was in
> progress??
> > >
> > >
> > > On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 9:39 AM, Ted Yu  wrote:
> > >
> > > > Andrew:
> > > > The diff shown in http://pastebin.com/Pvk3BH4i corresponds to
> > > HBASE-11219
> > > > which was integrated to master and 0.98 last night.
> > > >
> > > > In my local git workspace for 0.98, I do see this change.
> > > >
> > > > FYI
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 9:28 AM, Andrew Purtell  >
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Infra has closed the migration ticket.
> > > > >
> > > > > I looked at tags for trunk/master and 0.98, and these look fine.
> > > > >
> > > > > Unfortunately there are differences between SVN checkouts and Git
> > > > > checkouts. SVN has changes on trunk/master and 0.98 that did not
> make
> > > it
> > > > > over to Git looks like.
> > > > >
> > > > > master/trunk: http://pastebin.com/dQ6SU2Dz
> > > > >
> > > > > 0.98: http://pastebin.com/Pvk3BH4i
> > > > >
> > > > > 0.96: Good!
> > > > >
> > > > > 0.94: Good!
> > > > >
> > > > > 0.89-fb​: Good!
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 10:55 PM, Stack  wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks T.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The trunk test is still running fine.  Checkout local looks good
> > too.
> > > >  I
> > > > > > tried a branch.  It seems right too.  Asking about discrepancy in
> > the
> > > > tag
> > > > > > listings between the branches up in the INFRA issue.git.  Working
> > on
> > > > file
> > > > > > compares of svn and git checkouts  Will report back.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > St.Ack
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 10:02 PM, Ted Yu 
> > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > I pointed trunk Jenkins job to git repo and triggered a build.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > So far the tests are running fine.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > FYI
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 7:42 PM, Ted Yu 
> > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I 'git clone'd master branch.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Ran mvn package.
> > > > > > > > Ran some tests.
> > > > > > > > Checked 'git log'
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Looks Okay.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 7:23 PM, Stack 
> > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> Migration looks done:
> > > > > > > https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=hbase.git
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> Next up is checking if it is all there.  I was going to
> check
> > > > later
> > > > > > this
> > > > > > > >> evening but if anyone else wants to compare, that'd be
> grand.
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> St.Ack
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 6:04 PM, Andrew Purtell <
> > > > > apurt...@apache.org>
> > > > > > > >> wrote:
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> > I also have done trunk first then cherry pick to branches.
> > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > >> > On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 4:19 PM, Enis Söztutar <
> > > > > enis@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > >> wrote:
> > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > >> > > > crew).  On feature branches, lets see.  Squash if
> messy
> > > > > history
> > > > > > > >> (most
> > > > > > > >> > > > cases?)?
> > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > One immediate example is HBASE-10070 branch. We wanted a
> > > > smooth
> > > > > > > >> merge, so
> > > > > > > >> > > the branch history is clean and every commit traces to a
> > > jira
> > > > > > (with
> > > > > > > >> > reviews
> > > > > > > >> > > etc).
> > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > >> > > For "official" feature branches which will be pushed to
> > the
> > > > main
> > > > > > > >> repo, I
> > > > > > > >> > > think we should
> > > > > > > >> > > require a similar thing. If people need a working branch
> > > with
> > > > > > > >> less-clean
> > > > > > > >> > > history, there is
> > > > > > > >> > > no need to push that to the asf repo.
> > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > The Accumulo doc makes for a good start [1] (ignoring
> > > where
> > > > > > their
> > > > > > > >> > > branching
> > > > > > > >> > > > style is different to

Re: ANNOUCEMENT: Git Migration completed

[Nick Dimiduk]

What is the relationship between
https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf/hbase.git and git://
git.apache.org/hbase.git ? The latter is a read-only tracking repo?


On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 9:50 AM, Andrew Purtell  wrote:

> The migration from SVN to Git has completed and folks have begun committing
> to the new repository already.
>
> See https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=hbase.git
>
> Clone from https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf/hbase.git
>
>
> --
> Best regards,
>
>- Andy
>
> Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet Hein
> (via Tom White)
>

Re: ANNOUNCEMENT: Git Migration completed

[Andrew Purtell]

That is my understanding. Only HTTPS to git-wip-us supports authentication
for commit.


On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 10:18 AM, Nick Dimiduk  wrote:

> What is the relationship between
> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf/hbase.git and git://
> git.apache.org/hbase.git ? The latter is a read-only tracking repo?
>
>
> On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 9:50 AM, Andrew Purtell 
> wrote:
>
> > The migration from SVN to Git has completed and folks have begun
> committing
> > to the new repository already.
> >
> > See https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=hbase.git
> >
> > Clone from https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf/hbase.git
> >
> >
> > --
> > Best regards,
> >
> >- Andy
> >
> > Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet Hein
> > (via Tom White)
> >
>



-- 
Best regards,

   - Andy

Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet Hein
(via Tom White)

Re: ANNOUCEMENT: Git Migration completed

[Stack]

That is my understanding (Haven't tried committing against
git.apache.org/hbase.git).  Just committed this to our pom:

-scm:svn:http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/hbase/trunk

-scm:svn:
https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/hbase/trunk
-http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/hbase/trunk
+scm:git:git://git.apache.org/hbase.git
+scm:git:
https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf/hbase.git
+https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=hbase.git
   

St.Ack



On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 10:18 AM, Nick Dimiduk  wrote:

> What is the relationship between
> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf/hbase.git and git://
> git.apache.org/hbase.git ? The latter is a read-only tracking repo?
>
>
> On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 9:50 AM, Andrew Purtell 
> wrote:
>
> > The migration from SVN to Git has completed and folks have begun
> committing
> > to the new repository already.
> >
> > See https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=hbase.git
> >
> > Clone from https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf/hbase.git
> >
> >
> > --
> > Best regards,
> >
> >- Andy
> >
> > Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet Hein
> > (via Tom White)
> >
>

Re: ANNOUCEMENT: Git Migration completed

[Matteo Bertozzi]

Is github.com/apache/hbase gone forever or was removed just for the
migration and it will be added back later?

Matteo



On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 6:24 PM, Stack  wrote:

> That is my understanding (Haven't tried committing against
> git.apache.org/hbase.git).  Just committed this to our pom:
>
> -scm:svn:http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/hbase/trunk
> 
> -scm:svn:
> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/hbase/trunk
> -http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/hbase/trunk
> +scm:git:git://git.apache.org/hbase.git
> +scm:git:
> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf/hbase.git
> +https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=hbase.git
>
>
> St.Ack
>
>
>
> On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 10:18 AM, Nick Dimiduk  wrote:
>
> > What is the relationship between
> > https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf/hbase.git and git://
> > git.apache.org/hbase.git ? The latter is a read-only tracking repo?
> >
> >
> > On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 9:50 AM, Andrew Purtell 
> > wrote:
> >
> > > The migration from SVN to Git has completed and folks have begun
> > committing
> > > to the new repository already.
> > >
> > > See https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=hbase.git
> > >
> > > Clone from https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf/hbase.git
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Best regards,
> > >
> > >- Andy
> > >
> > > Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet
> Hein
> > > (via Tom White)
> > >
> >
>

Re: ANNOUCEMENT: Git Migration completed

[Andrew Purtell]

On the infra ticket Jake said: "I've deleted the Github mirror and setup
the git.a.o mirror which Github will pickup within 24 hours."

Also, when I pulled from git-wip-us into a repo cloned earlier from
git.apache.org / github.com/apache/hbase, it brought down 20K+ objects, so
the migration was a new run of git-svn. Eventually you could GC all of the
objects from the pre git-wip-us era but you might want to do a fresh clone.


On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 10:35 AM, Matteo Bertozzi
wrote:

> Is github.com/apache/hbase gone forever or was removed just for the
> migration and it will be added back later?
>
> Matteo
>
>
>
> On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 6:24 PM, Stack  wrote:
>
> > That is my understanding (Haven't tried committing against
> > git.apache.org/hbase.git).  Just committed this to our pom:
> >
> > -scm:svn:http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/hbase/trunk
> > 
> > -scm:svn:
> > https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/hbase/trunk
> > -http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/hbase/trunk
> > +scm:git:git://git.apache.org/hbase.git
> > +scm:git:
> > https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf/hbase.git
> > +https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=hbase.git
> >
> >
> > St.Ack
> >
> >
> >
> > On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 10:18 AM, Nick Dimiduk 
> wrote:
> >
> > > What is the relationship between
> > > https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf/hbase.git and git://
> > > git.apache.org/hbase.git ? The latter is a read-only tracking repo?
> > >
> > >
> > > On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 9:50 AM, Andrew Purtell 
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > The migration from SVN to Git has completed and folks have begun
> > > committing
> > > > to the new repository already.
> > > >
> > > > See https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=hbase.git
> > > >
> > > > Clone from https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf/hbase.git
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Best regards,
> > > >
> > > >- Andy
> > > >
> > > > Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet
> > Hein
> > > > (via Tom White)
> > > >
> > >
> >
>



-- 
Best regards,

   - Andy

Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet Hein
(via Tom White)

Re: ANNOUCEMENT: Git Migration completed

[Andrew Purtell]

Typing too fast this morning. 200K+


On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 10:43 AM, Andrew Purtell wrote:

> On the infra ticket Jake said: "I've deleted the Github mirror and setup
> the git.a.o mirror which Github will pickup within 24 hours."
>
> Also, when I pulled from git-wip-us into a repo cloned earlier from
> git.apache.org / github.com/apache/hbase, it brought down 20K+ objects,
> so the migration was a new run of git-svn. Eventually you could GC all of
> the objects from the pre git-wip-us era but you might want to do a fresh
> clone.
>
>
> On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 10:35 AM, Matteo Bertozzi  > wrote:
>
>> Is github.com/apache/hbase gone forever or was removed just for the
>> migration and it will be added back later?
>>
>> Matteo
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 6:24 PM, Stack  wrote:
>>
>> > That is my understanding (Haven't tried committing against
>> > git.apache.org/hbase.git).  Just committed this to our pom:
>> >
>> > -scm:svn:http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/hbase/trunk
>> > 
>> > -scm:svn:
>> > https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/hbase/trunk
>> > -http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/hbase/trunk
>> > +scm:git:git://git.apache.org/hbase.git
>> > +scm:git:
>> > https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf/hbase.git
>> > +https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=hbase.git
>> >
>> >
>> > St.Ack
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 10:18 AM, Nick Dimiduk 
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > > What is the relationship between
>> > > https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf/hbase.git and git://
>> > > git.apache.org/hbase.git ? The latter is a read-only tracking repo?
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 9:50 AM, Andrew Purtell 
>> > > wrote:
>> > >
>> > > > The migration from SVN to Git has completed and folks have begun
>> > > committing
>> > > > to the new repository already.
>> > > >
>> > > > See https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=hbase.git
>> > > >
>> > > > Clone from https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf/hbase.git
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > --
>> > > > Best regards,
>> > > >
>> > > >- Andy
>> > > >
>> > > > Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet
>> > Hein
>> > > > (via Tom White)
>> > > >
>> > >
>> >
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Best regards,
>
>- Andy
>
> Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet Hein
> (via Tom White)
>



-- 
Best regards,

   - Andy

Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet Hein
(via Tom White)

Re: ANNOUNCEMENT: Git Migration In Progress (WAS => Re: Git Migration)

[Enis Söztutar]

Thanks guys for checking.

Can we at least agree on always using something like the following flow for
checking in for now:
 - Commit the patch to trunk.
 - Try to cherry-pick the patch to 0.98 / 0.96 if possible
 - If not, manually commit the patch to the branch.

If the patch is applicable to the branch without issues, we should
cherry-pick which will help us in merges / comparisons etc.

Enis


On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 10:16 AM, Stack  wrote:

> What Andy said.
>
> I checked trunk and 0.96 branch content (compensating for above commits).
>  I confirmed list of branches and tags are the same.
>
> Thanks for sending the note saying repo is open again Andy.
>
> St.Ack
>
>
> On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 9:45 AM, Andrew Purtell 
> wrote:
>
> > That is unfortunate, because there was not an all clear sent to dev@. I
> > suppose we are "lucky" that otherwise the diffs are fine.  So I guess
> it's
> > open season on the Git repo then. Would have been nice for folks to have
> > waited for Stack or someone else to write back verifying file contents
> were
> > good.
> >
> >
> > On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 9:43 AM, Anoop John 
> wrote:
> >
> > > No Andy. Those were commits to Git after the migration.
> > >
> > > -Anoop-
> > >
> > > On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 10:11 PM, Andrew Purtell  > > >wrote:
> > >
> > > > So someone made a commit to SVN **after** the migration was in
> > progress??
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 9:39 AM, Ted Yu  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Andrew:
> > > > > The diff shown in http://pastebin.com/Pvk3BH4i corresponds to
> > > > HBASE-11219
> > > > > which was integrated to master and 0.98 last night.
> > > > >
> > > > > In my local git workspace for 0.98, I do see this change.
> > > > >
> > > > > FYI
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 9:28 AM, Andrew Purtell <
> apurt...@apache.org
> > >
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Infra has closed the migration ticket.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I looked at tags for trunk/master and 0.98, and these look fine.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Unfortunately there are differences between SVN checkouts and Git
> > > > > > checkouts. SVN has changes on trunk/master and 0.98 that did not
> > make
> > > > it
> > > > > > over to Git looks like.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > master/trunk: http://pastebin.com/dQ6SU2Dz
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 0.98: http://pastebin.com/Pvk3BH4i
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 0.96: Good!
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 0.94: Good!
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 0.89-fb​: Good!
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 10:55 PM, Stack 
> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Thanks T.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The trunk test is still running fine.  Checkout local looks
> good
> > > too.
> > > > >  I
> > > > > > > tried a branch.  It seems right too.  Asking about discrepancy
> in
> > > the
> > > > > tag
> > > > > > > listings between the branches up in the INFRA issue.git.
>  Working
> > > on
> > > > > file
> > > > > > > compares of svn and git checkouts  Will report back.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > St.Ack
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 10:02 PM, Ted Yu 
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I pointed trunk Jenkins job to git repo and triggered a
> build.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > So far the tests are running fine.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > FYI
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 7:42 PM, Ted Yu  >
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I 'git clone'd master branch.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Ran mvn package.
> > > > > > > > > Ran some tests.
> > > > > > > > > Checked 'git log'
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Looks Okay.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 7:23 PM, Stack 
> > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> Migration looks done:
> > > > > > > > https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=hbase.git
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> Next up is checking if it is all there.  I was going to
> > check
> > > > > later
> > > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > >> evening but if anyone else wants to compare, that'd be
> > grand.
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> St.Ack
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 6:04 PM, Andrew Purtell <
> > > > > > apurt...@apache.org>
> > > > > > > > >> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> > I also have done trunk first then cherry pick to
> branches.
> > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > >> > On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 4:19 PM, Enis Söztutar <
> > > > > > enis@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > >> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > crew).  On feature branches, lets see.  Squash if
> > messy
> > > > > > history
> > > > > > > > >> (most
> > > > > > > > >> > > > cases?)?
> > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > One immediate example is HBASE-10070 branch. We
> wanted a
> > > > > smooth
> > > > > > > > >> me

Re: HBase Git checkout

[Enis Söztutar]

There was a migration going on from svn to git for the canonical repo. You
can find more info on the other threads at dev@.

Enis


On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 5:00 AM, Bharath Vissapragada  wrote:

> Hey,
>
> It works for me. Alternatively you can try from
> https://github.com/apache/hbase.git as well (mirror),
>
> - Bharath
>
>
> On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 4:27 PM, Kashif Jawed Siddiqui
> wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > I am not able to checkout the code from github (using TortoiseGit
> > in Windows). Any clue why ? Any access permissions required ?
> >
> > git.exe clone  --recursive--progress -v  "
> > https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf/hbase.git";
> > "D:\HADOOP\hbase\GIT\apache.svn.latest.trunk\hbase"
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Bharath Vissapragada
> 
>

Re: ANNOUNCEMENT: Git Migration In Progress (WAS => Re: Git Migration)

[Stack]

On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 11:23 AM, Andrew Purtell wrote:

> ... I also believe we should rewrite history only in rare cases.
> ​​
>

Agreed.


On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 4:19 PM, Enis Söztutar  wrote:

> > crew).  On feature branches, lets see.  Squash if messy history (most
> > cases?)?
> >
> >
> ...
>
> For "official" feature branches which will be pushed to the main repo, I
> think we should
> require a similar thing. If people need a working branch with less-clean
> history, there is
> no need to push that to the asf repo.


Agreed.



On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 4:19 PM, Enis Söztutar  wrote:


> > The Accumulo doc makes for a good start [1] (ignoring where their
> branching
> > style is different to ours). It is informed by the Kafka contributors
> > workflow doc, also a good read [2]. When in doubt, do as we've done in
> the
> > past: e.g. adding patch to JIRA for hadoopqa run. Dump dev pains and
> > suggested solutions into this thread. Lets keep this thread alive with
> > issues we run into as a dev team and our (suggested) solutions. As our
> > practice diverges from that outline in docs above, lets note and add doc
> > locally?
> >
>
> +1 for a local doc.
>

I've made a small start.  Will try and collect all agreed herein (please
all keep dumping into this thread) and add it into the developer chapter.



> I think for existing release branches, the merge is out of question (if I
> understand this correctly). We always did trunk-first than cherry-pick into
> branches approach, while Accumulo suggests that we do earlier branch first,
> then merge into master. Since I don't have experience on this,
> not sure whether that will work for us or not.
>
>
I'd be fine w/ our starting out w/ our old practice (trunk first, then
other branches if needed making new issues if needed).  I'd not stop anyone
who'd want to try coming up from the other direction merging patch at the
earliest incidence; this seems more aligned w/ git-ness.



>
> >
> > I need to heads-up our FB brothers and sisters too
> >
>

Our man Elliott is game after the dust settles.

St.Ack

[jira] [Resolved] (HBASE-11110) Ability to load FilterList class is dependent on context classloader

[Lars Hofhansl (JIRA)]

 [ 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-0?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
 ]

Lars Hofhansl resolved HBASE-0.
---

  Resolution: Fixed
Hadoop Flags: Reviewed

Committed to 0.94. Thanks Gabriel.

> Ability to load FilterList class is dependent on context classloader
> 
>
> Key: HBASE-0
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-0
> Project: HBase
>  Issue Type: Bug
>Affects Versions: 0.94.19
>Reporter: Gabriel Reid
>Assignee: Gabriel Reid
> Fix For: 0.94.20
>
> Attachments: HBASE-0.patch
>
>
> In the 0.94 branch, the FilterList class contains a static call to 
> HBaseConfiguration.create(). This create call in turn adds the needed hbase 
> resources to the Configuration object, and sets the classloader of the 
> Configuration object to be the context classloader of the current thread (if 
> it isn't null).
> This approach causes issues if the FilterList class is loaded from a thread 
> that has a custom context classloader that doesn't run back up to the main 
> application classloader. In this case, 
> HBaseConfiguration.checkDefaultsVersion fails because the 
> hbase.defaults.for.version configuration value can't be found (because 
> hbase-default.xml can't be found by the custom context classloader).
> This is a concrete issue that was discovered via Apache Phoenix within a 
> commercial tool, when a (JDBC) connection is opened via a pool, and then 
> passed off to a UI thread that has a custom context classloader. The UI 
> thread is then the first thing to load FilterList, leading to this issue.



--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.2#6252)

Re: ANNOUNCEMENT: Git Migration In Progress (WAS => Re: Git Migration)

[Stack]

On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 11:06 AM, Enis Söztutar  wrote:

> Thanks guys for checking.
>
> Can we at least agree on always using something like the following flow for
> checking in for now:
>  - Commit the patch to trunk.
>  - Try to cherry-pick the patch to 0.98 / 0.96 if possible
>  - If not, manually commit the patch to the branch.
>
> If the patch is applicable to the branch without issues, we should
> cherry-pick which will help us in merges / comparisons etc.
>
>
OK by me.  If someone else oks it, I'll add it to our dev doc as practice
for now.
St.Ack

Re: HBase Git checkout

[Stack]

What Enis said.

Github mirror should be back in a while.

It is not possible to go against apache git:
http://hbase.apache.org/source-repository.html

St.Ack


On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 11:08 AM, Enis Söztutar  wrote:

> There was a migration going on from svn to git for the canonical repo. You
> can find more info on the other threads at dev@.
>
> Enis
>
>
> On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 5:00 AM, Bharath Vissapragada <
> bhara...@cloudera.com
> > wrote:
>
> > Hey,
> >
> > It works for me. Alternatively you can try from
> > https://github.com/apache/hbase.git as well (mirror),
> >
> > - Bharath
> >
> >
> > On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 4:27 PM, Kashif Jawed Siddiqui
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > I am not able to checkout the code from github (using
> TortoiseGit
> > > in Windows). Any clue why ? Any access permissions required ?
> > >
> > > git.exe clone  --recursive--progress -v  "
> > > https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf/hbase.git";
> > > "D:\HADOOP\hbase\GIT\apache.svn.latest.trunk\hbase"
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Bharath Vissapragada
> > 
> >
>

[jira] [Resolved] (HBASE-10507) Proper filter tests for TestImportExport

[Lars Hofhansl (JIRA)]

 [ 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-10507?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
 ]

Lars Hofhansl resolved HBASE-10507.
---

   Resolution: Won't Fix
Fix Version/s: (was: 0.98.4)
   (was: 0.94.20)
   (was: 0.96.3)
   (was: 0.99.0)

Keep pushing it. Marking as "Won't fix" unless somebody wants to just do it.

> Proper filter tests for TestImportExport
> 
>
> Key: HBASE-10507
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-10507
> Project: HBase
>  Issue Type: Sub-task
>Reporter: Lars Hofhansl
>
> See parent. TestImportExport.testWithFilter used to passed by accident (until 
> parent is fixed and until very recently also in trunk).
> This is as simple as just added some non-matching rows to the tests. Other 
> than parent that should be added to all branches.



--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.2#6252)

Re: ANNOUNCEMENT: Git Migration In Progress (WAS => Re: Git Migration)

[Andrew Purtell]

+1 from me too, this is how I would be doing it locally anyhow...


On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 11:57 AM, Stack  wrote:

> On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 11:06 AM, Enis Söztutar  wrote:
>
> > Thanks guys for checking.
> >
> > Can we at least agree on always using something like the following flow
> for
> > checking in for now:
> >  - Commit the patch to trunk.
> >  - Try to cherry-pick the patch to 0.98 / 0.96 if possible
> >  - If not, manually commit the patch to the branch.
> >
> > If the patch is applicable to the branch without issues, we should
> > cherry-pick which will help us in merges / comparisons etc.
> >
> >
> OK by me.  If someone else oks it, I'll add it to our dev doc as practice
> for now.
> St.Ack
>



-- 
Best regards,

   - Andy

Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet Hein
(via Tom White)

Re: ANNOUNCEMENT: Git Migration In Progress (WAS => Re: Git Migration)

[Ted Yu]

Sounds good to me.


On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 11:06 AM, Enis Söztutar  wrote:

> Thanks guys for checking.
>
> Can we at least agree on always using something like the following flow for
> checking in for now:
>  - Commit the patch to trunk.
>  - Try to cherry-pick the patch to 0.98 / 0.96 if possible
>  - If not, manually commit the patch to the branch.
>
> If the patch is applicable to the branch without issues, we should
> cherry-pick which will help us in merges / comparisons etc.
>
> Enis
>
>
> On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 10:16 AM, Stack  wrote:
>
> > What Andy said.
> >
> > I checked trunk and 0.96 branch content (compensating for above commits).
> >  I confirmed list of branches and tags are the same.
> >
> > Thanks for sending the note saying repo is open again Andy.
> >
> > St.Ack
> >
> >
> > On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 9:45 AM, Andrew Purtell 
> > wrote:
> >
> > > That is unfortunate, because there was not an all clear sent to dev@.
> I
> > > suppose we are "lucky" that otherwise the diffs are fine.  So I guess
> > it's
> > > open season on the Git repo then. Would have been nice for folks to
> have
> > > waited for Stack or someone else to write back verifying file contents
> > were
> > > good.
> > >
> > >
> > > On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 9:43 AM, Anoop John 
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > > No Andy. Those were commits to Git after the migration.
> > > >
> > > > -Anoop-
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 10:11 PM, Andrew Purtell <
> apurt...@apache.org
> > > > >wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > So someone made a commit to SVN **after** the migration was in
> > > progress??
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 9:39 AM, Ted Yu 
> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Andrew:
> > > > > > The diff shown in http://pastebin.com/Pvk3BH4i corresponds to
> > > > > HBASE-11219
> > > > > > which was integrated to master and 0.98 last night.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > In my local git workspace for 0.98, I do see this change.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > FYI
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 9:28 AM, Andrew Purtell <
> > apurt...@apache.org
> > > >
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Infra has closed the migration ticket.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I looked at tags for trunk/master and 0.98, and these look
> fine.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Unfortunately there are differences between SVN checkouts and
> Git
> > > > > > > checkouts. SVN has changes on trunk/master and 0.98 that did
> not
> > > make
> > > > > it
> > > > > > > over to Git looks like.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > master/trunk: http://pastebin.com/dQ6SU2Dz
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 0.98: http://pastebin.com/Pvk3BH4i
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 0.96: Good!
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 0.94: Good!
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 0.89-fb​: Good!
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 10:55 PM, Stack 
> > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Thanks T.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > The trunk test is still running fine.  Checkout local looks
> > good
> > > > too.
> > > > > >  I
> > > > > > > > tried a branch.  It seems right too.  Asking about
> discrepancy
> > in
> > > > the
> > > > > > tag
> > > > > > > > listings between the branches up in the INFRA issue.git.
> >  Working
> > > > on
> > > > > > file
> > > > > > > > compares of svn and git checkouts  Will report back.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > St.Ack
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 10:02 PM, Ted Yu <
> yuzhih...@gmail.com>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I pointed trunk Jenkins job to git repo and triggered a
> > build.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > So far the tests are running fine.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > FYI
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 7:42 PM, Ted Yu <
> yuzhih...@gmail.com
> > >
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > I 'git clone'd master branch.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Ran mvn package.
> > > > > > > > > > Ran some tests.
> > > > > > > > > > Checked 'git log'
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Looks Okay.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 7:23 PM, Stack  >
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> Migration looks done:
> > > > > > > > > https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=hbase.git
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >> Next up is checking if it is all there.  I was going to
> > > check
> > > > > > later
> > > > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > > >> evening but if anyone else wants to compare, that'd be
> > > grand.
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >> St.Ack
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >> On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 6:04 PM, Andrew Purtell <
> > > > > > > apurt...@apache.org>
> > > > > > > > > >> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >> > I also have done trunk first then cherry pick to
> > branches.
> > > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > >>

Compression ClassLoader

[Enoch Hsu]

Hi All,

I was looking at Compression.java and I noticed that for Snappy and LZO
compression it is using ClassLoader.getSystemClassLoader() to retrieve the
class file.
LZ4 compression is using this built in function

 private static ClassLoader getClassLoaderForCodec() {
ClassLoader cl = Thread.currentThread().getContextClassLoader();
if (cl == null) {
  cl = Compression.class.getClassLoader();
}
if (cl == null) {
  cl = ClassLoader.getSystemClassLoader();
}
if (cl == null) {
  throw new RuntimeException("A ClassLoader to load the Codec could not
be determined");
}
return cl;
  }

Is there a reason for the differences between using getSystemClassLoader
and getClassLoaderForCodec?
Seems like the getClassLoaderForCodec method of retrieving compression
class files is more user friendly?

Thanks,
Enoch Hsu

Re: On coprocessor API evolution

[Michael Segel]

Todd, 

I’m saying that you’re raising a straw man. 
Now correct me if I’m wrong… but coprocessor code is split in to two camps. One 
is System coprocessors which are defined in the hbase-site.xml, right? 
What do you call the other group of coprocessor code? 
(Sorry my memory is going. Killed too many brain cells when I was a young lad…) 

Lets be clear, I’m not talking about letting some guy named Andrew come in and 
drop any old code on the system, but more of stopping James a developer in a 
different team writing an app with server side functionality that I don’t 
control. 

I think we all know this to be the case. 

Again, I’d suggest that the committers put on a product owner’s hat and think 
about the issue… 

But it really doesn’t matter. Spark is going to supplant all this tech… ;-) 

(Do I really need to add   tags? 

On May 21, 2014, at 6:50 PM, Todd Lipcon  wrote:

> On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 5:16 AM, Michael Segel 
> wrote:
> 
>> And they accuse me of raising a straw man. ;-)
>> 
> 
> I wasn't arguing for or against coprocessors being out of process. I think
> both sides of this "argument" are in fact in agreement: if you think of
> coprocessors as a place to run *user* code, they need to run out of
> process, or otherwise be sandboxed (eg by having a stripped down DSL, as
> many SQL DBs do with procedural SQL variants). Another option might be to
> use embeddable Javascript, which is fairly doable in the context of the JVM.
> 
> But today, coprocessors are not a place to run arbitrary user code. I doubt
> you can find examples where we suggest non-sophisticated users to drop in
> arbitrary code into their clusters and expect full stability. The analogy
> I've always used is Linux kernel modules: you can extend the kernel in all
> sorts of fun ways, but you have to trust whoever gives you the code to run,
> and a bad module can kill your whole system. Similar to kernel modules, I
> expect only sanctioned "vendors" (eg other open source projects like
> Phoenix) or highly sophisticated users to ever drop in a CP.
> 
> 
>> Todd, really? A parent/child relationship can be secured… how depends on
>> how you communicate.
>> You could always encrypt the data… in the messaging… ;-)
>> 
> 
> I think you are confusing confidentiality and security, and not sure you
> read the article I linked to. Shared memory does not imply better
> performance for all applications, exactly because of the issue I linked to.
> If you plan to map the shared memory, and you want to treat that memory
> like some kind of structure (eg in which there are length prefixes,
> pointers, etc), you must either trust your peer or you must copy the data
> before validating it. So, it's no magic bullet for faster sharing of data
> between a CP and HBase.
> 
> 
>> 
>> 
>> On May 19, 2014, at 11:37 PM, Todd Lipcon  wrote:
>> 
>>> On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 12:05 PM, Vladimir Rodionov
>>> wrote:
>>> 
 Michael S.
>> To the best of my knowledge,  MapR’s M7 doesn’t have coprocessors.
>> I’ll
 wager that when they do, it will work and not have these issues. I
>> believe
 that they are writing their stuff in C/C++, if so, then they’d have an
 advantage of using shared memory.  Apache would have write C/C++ code
>> and
 wrap it in JNI… which you may not want to do…<<
 
 MapR M7 does not support coprocessors and custom Filters as well. I
 consider this to be a serious limitation of the product.
 Shared memory communication can be done in Java w/o single line of C/C++
 code, Michael by means of memory-mapped files.
 
 -Vladimir
 
 
>>> And even in native code, shared memory for communication between
>> untrusted
>>> peers can be pretty tricky to do securely (read
>>> http://lwn.net/Articles/593918/ for details)
>>> 
>>> -Todd
>>> --
>>> Todd Lipcon
>>> Software Engineer, Cloudera
>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Todd Lipcon
> Software Engineer, Cloudera

[jira] [Created] (HBASE-11237) Bulk load initiated by user other than hbase fails

[Dima Spivak (JIRA)]

Dima Spivak created HBASE-11237:
---

 Summary: Bulk load initiated by user other than hbase fails
 Key: HBASE-11237
 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-11237
 Project: HBase
  Issue Type: Bug
Affects Versions: 0.98.1
Reporter: Dima Spivak
Assignee: Jimmy Xiang
Priority: Critical


Running TestLoadIncrementalHFiles and TestHFileOutputFormat as a properly 
kinit'd HBase superuser who isn't "hbase" began to fail last month after a 
patch to fix HBASE-10902 was committed to trunk.



--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.2#6252)

[ANNOUNCE] Apache Phoenix has graduated as a top level project

[James Taylor]

I'm pleased to announce that Apache Phoenix has graduated from the
incubator to become a top level project. Thanks so much for all your help
and support - we couldn't have done it without the fantastic HBase
community! We're looking forward to continued collaboration.
Regards,
The Apache Phoenix team

Re: [ANNOUNCE] Apache Phoenix has graduated as a top level project

[Ted Yu]

Congratulations.


On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 2:46 PM, James Taylor wrote:

> I'm pleased to announce that Apache Phoenix has graduated from the
> incubator to become a top level project. Thanks so much for all your help
> and support - we couldn't have done it without the fantastic HBase
> community! We're looking forward to continued collaboration.
> Regards,
> The Apache Phoenix team
>

Re: [ANNOUNCE] Apache Phoenix has graduated as a top level project

[Jean-Marc Spaggiari]

Oh, nice!!!

Congratulations to all the Phoenix team!!!

JM
Le 2014-05-22 17:46, "James Taylor"  a écrit :

> I'm pleased to announce that Apache Phoenix has graduated from the
> incubator to become a top level project. Thanks so much for all your help
> and support - we couldn't have done it without the fantastic HBase
> community! We're looking forward to continued collaboration.
> Regards,
> The Apache Phoenix team
>

0.94.20RC0 tonight...

[lars hofhansl]

... if I can work out the git process.

-- Lars

Re: [ANNOUNCE] Apache Phoenix has graduated as a top level project

[Konstantin Boudnik]

Great! Congratulations! 

On May 22, 2014 2:46:16 PM PDT, James Taylor  wrote:
>I'm pleased to announce that Apache Phoenix has graduated from the
>incubator to become a top level project. Thanks so much for all your
>help
>and support - we couldn't have done it without the fantastic HBase
>community! We're looking forward to continued collaboration.
>Regards,
>The Apache Phoenix team

Re: 0.94.20RC0 tonight...

[lars hofhansl]

Looks like git is getting in the way of productivity again...


Does anybody know how to do a jenkins build against a specific tag?

The "obvious" way of specifying */tags/ in "branch" field does not 
work.
Helpfully, the git plugin for jenkins does not report any error (that would be 
too old school, I guess). Rather the build just hangs.

So has anybody does this successfully? If so, how?


-- Lars




 From: lars hofhansl 
To: Hbase-dev  
Sent: Thursday, May 22, 2014 3:54 PM
Subject: 0.94.20RC0 tonight...
 

... if I can work out the git process.

-- Lars

[jira] [Created] (HBASE-11238) Add info about SlabCache and BucketCache to Ref Guide

[Misty Stanley-Jones (JIRA)]

Misty Stanley-Jones created HBASE-11238:
---

 Summary: Add info about SlabCache and BucketCache to Ref Guide
 Key: HBASE-11238
 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-11238
 Project: HBase
  Issue Type: Bug
  Components: documentation
Affects Versions: 0.98.2
Reporter: Misty Stanley-Jones
Assignee: Misty Stanley-Jones
 Attachments: HBASE-11238.patch

Upstream issues: HBASE-11171 and HBASE-11098. Could back port some of what is 
in these issues, the package-info.java class for instance.



--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.2#6252)

RE: 0.94.20RC0 tonight...

[Kashif Jawed Siddiqui]

Hi Lars,

Can you take a look at HBASE-10933 ?

https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-10933

Maybe useful to go into this release :)

Regards
KASHIF

***
This e-mail and attachments contain confidential information from HUAWEI, which 
is intended only for the person or entity whose address is listed above. Any 
use of the information contained herein in any way (including, but not limited 
to, total or partial disclosure, reproduction, or dissemination) by persons 
other than the intended recipient's) is prohibited. If you receive this e-mail 
in error, please notify the sender by phone or email immediately and delete it!


-Original Message-
From: lars hofhansl [mailto:la...@apache.org] 
Sent: 23 May 2014 04:25
To: Hbase-dev
Subject: 0.94.20RC0 tonight...

... if I can work out the git process.

-- Lars

Re: 0.94.20RC0 tonight...

[Ted Yu]

Branch field should specify branch. 

Please take a look at 
http://stackoverflow.com/questions/10195900/jenkins-git-plugin-how-to-build-specific-tag

Cheers

On May 22, 2014, at 9:57 PM, lars hofhansl  wrote:

> Looks like git is getting in the way of productivity again...
> 
> 
> Does anybody know how to do a jenkins build against a specific tag?
> 
> The "obvious" way of specifying */tags/ in "branch" field does not 
> work.
> Helpfully, the git plugin for jenkins does not report any error (that would 
> be too old school, I guess). Rather the build just hangs.
> 
> So has anybody does this successfully? If so, how?
> 
> 
> -- Lars
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From: lars hofhansl 
> To: Hbase-dev  
> Sent: Thursday, May 22, 2014 3:54 PM
> Subject: 0.94.20RC0 tonight...
> 
> 
> ... if I can work out the git process.
> 
> -- Lars

Re: ANNOUNCEMENT: Git Migration In Progress (WAS => Re: Git Migration)

[Stack]

I added to the refguide here:
http://hbase.apache.org/book.html#git.patch.flow

Also updated our build box references so point to git instead of svn.

St.Ack


On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 11:06 AM, Enis Söztutar  wrote:

> Thanks guys for checking.
>
> Can we at least agree on always using something like the following flow for
> checking in for now:
>  - Commit the patch to trunk.
>  - Try to cherry-pick the patch to 0.98 / 0.96 if possible
>  - If not, manually commit the patch to the branch.
>
> If the patch is applicable to the branch without issues, we should
> cherry-pick which will help us in merges / comparisons etc.
>
> Enis
>
>
> On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 10:16 AM, Stack  wrote:
>
> > What Andy said.
> >
> > I checked trunk and 0.96 branch content (compensating for above commits).
> >  I confirmed list of branches and tags are the same.
> >
> > Thanks for sending the note saying repo is open again Andy.
> >
> > St.Ack
> >
> >
> > On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 9:45 AM, Andrew Purtell 
> > wrote:
> >
> > > That is unfortunate, because there was not an all clear sent to dev@.
> I
> > > suppose we are "lucky" that otherwise the diffs are fine.  So I guess
> > it's
> > > open season on the Git repo then. Would have been nice for folks to
> have
> > > waited for Stack or someone else to write back verifying file contents
> > were
> > > good.
> > >
> > >
> > > On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 9:43 AM, Anoop John 
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > > No Andy. Those were commits to Git after the migration.
> > > >
> > > > -Anoop-
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 10:11 PM, Andrew Purtell <
> apurt...@apache.org
> > > > >wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > So someone made a commit to SVN **after** the migration was in
> > > progress??
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 9:39 AM, Ted Yu 
> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Andrew:
> > > > > > The diff shown in http://pastebin.com/Pvk3BH4i corresponds to
> > > > > HBASE-11219
> > > > > > which was integrated to master and 0.98 last night.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > In my local git workspace for 0.98, I do see this change.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > FYI
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 9:28 AM, Andrew Purtell <
> > apurt...@apache.org
> > > >
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Infra has closed the migration ticket.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I looked at tags for trunk/master and 0.98, and these look
> fine.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Unfortunately there are differences between SVN checkouts and
> Git
> > > > > > > checkouts. SVN has changes on trunk/master and 0.98 that did
> not
> > > make
> > > > > it
> > > > > > > over to Git looks like.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > master/trunk: http://pastebin.com/dQ6SU2Dz
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 0.98: http://pastebin.com/Pvk3BH4i
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 0.96: Good!
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 0.94: Good!
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 0.89-fb​: Good!
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 10:55 PM, Stack 
> > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Thanks T.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > The trunk test is still running fine.  Checkout local looks
> > good
> > > > too.
> > > > > >  I
> > > > > > > > tried a branch.  It seems right too.  Asking about
> discrepancy
> > in
> > > > the
> > > > > > tag
> > > > > > > > listings between the branches up in the INFRA issue.git.
> >  Working
> > > > on
> > > > > > file
> > > > > > > > compares of svn and git checkouts  Will report back.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > St.Ack
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 10:02 PM, Ted Yu <
> yuzhih...@gmail.com>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I pointed trunk Jenkins job to git repo and triggered a
> > build.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > So far the tests are running fine.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > FYI
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 7:42 PM, Ted Yu <
> yuzhih...@gmail.com
> > >
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > I 'git clone'd master branch.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Ran mvn package.
> > > > > > > > > > Ran some tests.
> > > > > > > > > > Checked 'git log'
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Looks Okay.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 7:23 PM, Stack  >
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> Migration looks done:
> > > > > > > > > https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=hbase.git
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >> Next up is checking if it is all there.  I was going to
> > > check
> > > > > > later
> > > > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > > >> evening but if anyone else wants to compare, that'd be
> > > grand.
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >> St.Ack
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >> On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 6:04 PM, Andrew Purtell <
> > > > > > > apurt...@apache.org>
> > > > > > > > > >> wrote:
> > > > > >

Re: 0.94.20RC0 tonight...

[Andrew Purtell]

Would you like me to run iterations of the 0.94 unit test suite on a test rig 
in lieu of Jenkins ? 


> On May 22, 2014, at 9:57 PM, lars hofhansl  wrote:
> 
> Looks like git is getting in the way of productivity again...
> 
> 
> Does anybody know how to do a jenkins build against a specific tag?
> 
> The "obvious" way of specifying */tags/ in "branch" field does not 
> work.
> Helpfully, the git plugin for jenkins does not report any error (that would 
> be too old school, I guess). Rather the build just hangs.
> 
> So has anybody does this successfully? If so, how?
> 
> 
> -- Lars
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From: lars hofhansl 
> To: Hbase-dev  
> Sent: Thursday, May 22, 2014 3:54 PM
> Subject: 0.94.20RC0 tonight...
> 
> 
> ... if I can work out the git process.
> 
> -- Lars

Re: 0.94.20RC0 tonight...

[lars hofhansl]

I found that by Googl'ing myself, but notice it does not actually provide a 
working answer. 

(Except for the maybe the dude who had to write his own script to extract the 
tag wanted, which cannot be seriously the right answer)

Also right there in the top answer it is also suggested to select the tag in 
the branch field.

I am beginning to think that move to git was rushed a bit and we did not think 
through all the implications.

-- Lars




 From: Ted Yu 
To: "dev@hbase.apache.org"  
Cc: "dev@hbase.apache.org"  
Sent: Thursday, May 22, 2014 10:16 PM
Subject: Re: 0.94.20RC0 tonight...
 

Branch field should specify branch. 

Please take a look at 
http://stackoverflow.com/questions/10195900/jenkins-git-plugin-how-to-build-specific-tag

Cheers


On May 22, 2014, at 9:57 PM, lars hofhansl  wrote:

> Looks like git is getting in the way of productivity again...
> 
> 
> Does anybody know how to do a jenkins build against a specific tag?
> 
> The "obvious" way of specifying */tags/ in "branch" field does not 
> work.
> Helpfully, the git plugin for jenkins does not report any error (that would 
> be too old school, I guess). Rather the build just hangs.
> 
> So has anybody does this successfully? If so, how?
> 
> 
> -- Lars
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From: lars hofhansl 
> To: Hbase-dev  
> Sent: Thursday, May 22, 2014 3:54 PM
> Subject: 0.94.20RC0 tonight...
> 
> 
> ... if I can work out the git process.
> 
> -- Lars

[jira] [Created] (HBASE-11239) Forgot to svn add test that was part of HBASE-11171, TestCacheConfig

[stack (JIRA)]

stack created HBASE-11239:
-

 Summary: Forgot to svn add test that was part of HBASE-11171, 
TestCacheConfig
 Key: HBASE-11239
 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-11239
 Project: HBase
  Issue Type: Bug
  Components: test
Reporter: stack
Assignee: stack
 Fix For: 0.99.0


Test was in the patch that was over in HBASE-11171.  I forgot to svn add it.  
Let me do it in this issue.



--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.2#6252)

Re: 0.94.20RC0 tonight...

[lars hofhansl]

That would be awesome!
(Although we have to find a way to run jenkins against a tag. It flabbergasts 
me that that would even be an issue, as nobody before saw the need for doing 
that.)




 From: Andrew Purtell 
To: "dev@hbase.apache.org"  
Sent: Thursday, May 22, 2014 10:48 PM
Subject: Re: 0.94.20RC0 tonight...
 

Would you like me to run iterations of the 0.94 unit test suite on a test rig 
in lieu of Jenkins ? 



> On May 22, 2014, at 9:57 PM, lars hofhansl  wrote:
> 
> Looks like git is getting in the way of productivity again...
> 
> 
> Does anybody know how to do a jenkins build against a specific tag?
> 
> The "obvious" way of specifying */tags/ in "branch" field does not 
> work.
> Helpfully, the git plugin for jenkins does not report any error (that would 
> be too old school, I guess). Rather the build just hangs.
> 
> So has anybody does this successfully? If so, how?
> 
> 
> -- Lars
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From: lars hofhansl 
> To: Hbase-dev  
> Sent: Thursday, May 22, 2014 3:54 PM
> Subject: 0.94.20RC0 tonight...
> 
> 
> ... if I can work out the git process.
> 
> -- Lars

Re: 0.94.20RC0 tonight...

[Stack]

Can you not take the 0.94 jenkins build?  If no changes, its same as the
tag?
St.Ack


On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 9:57 PM, lars hofhansl  wrote:

> Looks like git is getting in the way of productivity again...
>
>
> Does anybody know how to do a jenkins build against a specific tag?
>
> The "obvious" way of specifying */tags/ in "branch" field does
> not work.
> Helpfully, the git plugin for jenkins does not report any error (that
> would be too old school, I guess). Rather the build just hangs.
>
> So has anybody does this successfully? If so, how?
>
>
> -- Lars
>
>
>
> 
>  From: lars hofhansl 
> To: Hbase-dev 
> Sent: Thursday, May 22, 2014 3:54 PM
> Subject: 0.94.20RC0 tonight...
>
>
> ... if I can work out the git process.
>
> -- Lars

[jira] [Resolved] (HBASE-11239) Forgot to svn add test that was part of HBASE-11171, TestCacheConfig

[stack (JIRA)]

 [ 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-11239?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
 ]

stack resolved HBASE-11239.
---

Resolution: Fixed

Committed the test.

> Forgot to svn add test that was part of HBASE-11171, TestCacheConfig
> 
>
> Key: HBASE-11239
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-11239
> Project: HBase
>  Issue Type: Bug
>  Components: test
>Reporter: stack
>Assignee: stack
> Fix For: 0.99.0
>
>
> Test was in the patch that was over in HBASE-11171.  I forgot to svn add it.  
> Let me do it in this issue.



--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.2#6252)

Re: ANNOUNCEMENT: Git Migration In Progress (WAS => Re: Git Migration)

[Nicolas Liochon]

Can we now commit again, or is the migration still in progress?

Thanks,

Nicolas


On Fri, May 23, 2014 at 7:31 AM, Stack  wrote:

> I added to the refguide here:
> http://hbase.apache.org/book.html#git.patch.flow
>
> Also updated our build box references so point to git instead of svn.
>
> St.Ack
>
>
> On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 11:06 AM, Enis Söztutar  wrote:
>
> > Thanks guys for checking.
> >
> > Can we at least agree on always using something like the following flow
> for
> > checking in for now:
> >  - Commit the patch to trunk.
> >  - Try to cherry-pick the patch to 0.98 / 0.96 if possible
> >  - If not, manually commit the patch to the branch.
> >
> > If the patch is applicable to the branch without issues, we should
> > cherry-pick which will help us in merges / comparisons etc.
> >
> > Enis
> >
> >
> > On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 10:16 AM, Stack  wrote:
> >
> > > What Andy said.
> > >
> > > I checked trunk and 0.96 branch content (compensating for above
> commits).
> > >  I confirmed list of branches and tags are the same.
> > >
> > > Thanks for sending the note saying repo is open again Andy.
> > >
> > > St.Ack
> > >
> > >
> > > On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 9:45 AM, Andrew Purtell 
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > That is unfortunate, because there was not an all clear sent to dev@
> .
> > I
> > > > suppose we are "lucky" that otherwise the diffs are fine.  So I guess
> > > it's
> > > > open season on the Git repo then. Would have been nice for folks to
> > have
> > > > waited for Stack or someone else to write back verifying file
> contents
> > > were
> > > > good.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 9:43 AM, Anoop John 
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > No Andy. Those were commits to Git after the migration.
> > > > >
> > > > > -Anoop-
> > > > >
> > > > > On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 10:11 PM, Andrew Purtell <
> > apurt...@apache.org
> > > > > >wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > So someone made a commit to SVN **after** the migration was in
> > > > progress??
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 9:39 AM, Ted Yu 
> > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Andrew:
> > > > > > > The diff shown in http://pastebin.com/Pvk3BH4i corresponds to
> > > > > > HBASE-11219
> > > > > > > which was integrated to master and 0.98 last night.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > In my local git workspace for 0.98, I do see this change.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > FYI
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 9:28 AM, Andrew Purtell <
> > > apurt...@apache.org
> > > > >
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Infra has closed the migration ticket.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I looked at tags for trunk/master and 0.98, and these look
> > fine.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Unfortunately there are differences between SVN checkouts and
> > Git
> > > > > > > > checkouts. SVN has changes on trunk/master and 0.98 that did
> > not
> > > > make
> > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > over to Git looks like.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > master/trunk: http://pastebin.com/dQ6SU2Dz
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > 0.98: http://pastebin.com/Pvk3BH4i
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > 0.96: Good!
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > 0.94: Good!
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > 0.89-fb​: Good!
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 10:55 PM, Stack 
> > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Thanks T.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > The trunk test is still running fine.  Checkout local looks
> > > good
> > > > > too.
> > > > > > >  I
> > > > > > > > > tried a branch.  It seems right too.  Asking about
> > discrepancy
> > > in
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > tag
> > > > > > > > > listings between the branches up in the INFRA issue.git.
> > >  Working
> > > > > on
> > > > > > > file
> > > > > > > > > compares of svn and git checkouts  Will report back.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > St.Ack
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 10:02 PM, Ted Yu <
> > yuzhih...@gmail.com>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > I pointed trunk Jenkins job to git repo and triggered a
> > > build.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > So far the tests are running fine.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > FYI
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 7:42 PM, Ted Yu <
> > yuzhih...@gmail.com
> > > >
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > I 'git clone'd master branch.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Ran mvn package.
> > > > > > > > > > > Ran some tests.
> > > > > > > > > > > Checked 'git log'
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Looks Okay.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 7:23 PM, Stack <
> st...@duboce.net
> > >
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> Migration looks done:
> > > > > > > > > > https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=hbase.git
> > > > > >

[jira] [Resolved] (HBASE-11048) Support setting custom priority per client RPC

[Jesse Yates (JIRA)]

 [ 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-11048?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
 ]

Jesse Yates resolved HBASE-11048.
-

Resolution: Fixed

> Support setting custom priority per client RPC
> --
>
> Key: HBASE-11048
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-11048
> Project: HBase
>  Issue Type: Improvement
>  Components: Client
>Affects Versions: 0.99.0, 0.98.2
>Reporter: Jesse Yates
>Assignee: Jesse Yates
>  Labels: Phoenix
> Fix For: 0.99.0, 0.98.3
>
> Attachments: hbase-11048-0.98-v0.patch, hbase-11048-trunk-v0.patch, 
> hbase-11048-trunk-v1.patch
>
>
> Servers have the ability to handle custom rpc priority levels, but currently 
> we are only using it to differentiate META/ROOT updates from replication and 
> other 'priority' updates (as specified by annotation tags per RS method). 
> However, some clients need the ability to create custom handlers (e.g. 
> PHOENIX-938) which can really only be cleanly tied together to requests by 
> the request priority. The disconnect is in that there is no way for the 
> client to overwrite the priority per table - the PayloadCarryingRpcController 
> will always just set priority per ROOT/META and otherwise just use the 
> generic priority.



--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.2#6252)

Re: 0.94.20RC0 tonight...

[lars hofhansl]

Yeah, I will do that for now.
Means we're back to the no-checkins-for-a-bit-please times, though.




 From: Stack 
To: HBase Dev List ; lars hofhansl  
Sent: Thursday, May 22, 2014 11:12 PM
Subject: Re: 0.94.20RC0 tonight...
 

Can you not take the 0.94 jenkins build?  If no changes, its same as the
tag?
St.Ack



On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 9:57 PM, lars hofhansl  wrote:

> Looks like git is getting in the way of productivity again...
>
>
> Does anybody know how to do a jenkins build against a specific tag?
>
> The "obvious" way of specifying */tags/ in "branch" field does
> not work.
> Helpfully, the git plugin for jenkins does not report any error (that
> would be too old school, I guess). Rather the build just hangs.
>
> So has anybody does this successfully? If so, how?
>
>
> -- Lars
>
>
>
> 
>  From: lars hofhansl 
> To: Hbase-dev 
> Sent: Thursday, May 22, 2014 3:54 PM
> Subject: 0.94.20RC0 tonight...
>
>
> ... if I can work out the git process.
>
> -- Lars

Re: 0.94.20RC0 tonight...

[lars hofhansl]

Let's do that one next month in 0.94.21.




 From: Kashif Jawed Siddiqui 
To: "dev@hbase.apache.org" ; lars hofhansl 
 
Sent: Thursday, May 22, 2014 10:12 PM
Subject: RE: 0.94.20RC0 tonight...
 

Hi Lars,

    Can you take a look at HBASE-10933 ?

    https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-10933

    Maybe useful to go into this release :)

Regards
KASHIF

***
This e-mail and attachments contain confidential information from HUAWEI, which 
is intended only for the person or entity whose address is listed above. Any 
use of the information contained herein in any way (including, but not limited 
to, total or partial disclosure, reproduction, or dissemination) by persons 
other than the intended recipient's) is prohibited. If you receive this e-mail 
in error, please notify the sender by phone or email immediately and delete it!



-Original Message-
From: lars hofhansl [mailto:la...@apache.org] 
Sent: 23 May 2014 04:25
To: Hbase-dev
Subject: 0.94.20RC0 tonight...

... if I can work out the git process.

-- Lars