+1
On Tue, Nov 17, 2020 at 8:44 AM Stack wrote:
> Please VOTE on whether to merge HBASE-18070 feature branch to master (and
> HBASE-18070.branch-2 to branch-2). The VOTE runs for 24 hours. The majority
> prevails (+ or -).
>
> Quoting the design lead-in:
>
> Read Replicas on the hbase:meta Tabl
+1
S
On Tue, Nov 17, 2020 at 8:43 AM Stack wrote:
> Please VOTE on whether to merge HBASE-18070 feature branch to master (and
> HBASE-18070.branch-2 to branch-2). The VOTE runs for 24 hours. The majority
> prevails (+ or -).
>
> Quoting the design lead-in:
>
> Read Replicas on the hbase:meta Tab
+1. Reviewed the design doc and the consolidated patch, great improvement,
thanks for putting this together.
On Tue, Nov 17, 2020 at 9:09 AM Stack wrote:
> +1
> S
>
> On Tue, Nov 17, 2020 at 8:43 AM Stack wrote:
>
> > Please VOTE on whether to merge HBASE-18070 feature branch to master (and
> >
+1
On Tue, Nov 17, 2020 at 9:21 AM Bharath Vissapragada
wrote:
> +1. Reviewed the design doc and the consolidated patch, great improvement,
> thanks for putting this together.
>
> On Tue, Nov 17, 2020 at 9:09 AM Stack wrote:
>
> > +1
> > S
> >
> > On Tue, Nov 17, 2020 at 8:43 AM Stack wrote:
>
+1
On Tue, Nov 17, 2020 at 9:49 AM Huaxiang Sun wrote:
> +1
>
> On Tue, Nov 17, 2020 at 9:21 AM Bharath Vissapragada
> wrote:
>
> > +1. Reviewed the design doc and the consolidated patch, great
> improvement,
> > thanks for putting this together.
> >
> > On Tue, Nov 17, 2020 at 9:09 AM Stack w
Hi, bring my -1 from the HEAD-UP thread, this is a veto.
My concerns have not been fully resolved. Let's work it out on jira.
Thanks.
clara xiong 于2020年11月18日周三 上午1:51写道：
> +1
>
> On Tue, Nov 17, 2020 at 9:49 AM Huaxiang Sun
> wrote:
>
> > +1
> >
> > On Tue, Nov 17, 2020 at 9:21 AM Bharath Vi
I am concerned this is not a valid technical veto and it’s time for the PMC to
take a more active role. This is poison to collaboration and it is affecting
multiple people.
> On Nov 17, 2020, at 5:43 PM, 张铎 wrote:
>
> Hi, bring my -1 from the HEAD-UP thread, this is a veto.
>
> My concerns
Let me refer you to the Foundation guidance on voting:
https://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html , and specifically the
section on vetos:
A code-modification proposal may be stopped dead in its tracks by a -1 vote
by a qualified voter. This constitutes a veto, and it cannot be overruled
nor ov
This vote passed 24 hours deadline. We got 5 +1s and 1 -1. What is the path
to move forward? Anything we (as feature developers) can do to revert the
-1?
As it blocks 2.4 release, I think we need a decision asap.
Thanks,
Huaxiang
On Wed, Nov 18, 2020 at 8:46 AM Andrew Purtell
wrote:
> Let me r
Pause a moment Huaxiang and give some time for the PMC to talk in
private a bit.
On Wed, Nov 18, 2020 at 12:44 PM Huaxiang Sun wrote:
>
> This vote passed 24 hours deadline. We got 5 +1s and 1 -1. What is the path
> to move forward? Anything we (as feature developers) can do to revert the
> -1?
>
Thank you Andrew. I think my last comment clearly describe the two
questions given by you.
A clear and compelling reason why the proposed change is harmful or
>undesirable
It is about the fundamental of this issue. Due to the back and forth on how
a test could used to verify the feature, I'm
That's not how a technical veto works. The burden to explain how the
contributors can fix the reason for the veto is on you. You need to give a
list of action items. "Fundamental of the issue" is just your opinion.
Nobody here is a Boss. Contributors don't have to satisfy your (nebulous)
requiremen
OK, let me explain the technical part.
What I proposed in the test is to verify that we could distribute the load
across all the meta so we could benefit if the main replica is f**ked up.
But then stack said this has already been solved by the old read replicas
feature. Maybe in the first place I
So as long as I have already put the above things out, I do not think the 4
questions are still useful to solve the concerns here.
Then I propose that someone please add the above explanation to the design
doc of HBASE-18070 to explicitly mention that the hedge read mode on meta
can not afford mor
On Wed, Nov 18, 2020 at 7:03 PM 张铎(Duo Zhang) wrote:
> OK, let me explain the technical part.
>
> What I proposed in the test is to verify that we could distribute the load
> across all the meta so we could benefit if the main replica is f**ked up.
> But then stack said this has already been solv
It is not only about satisfying me, as a community we need to make sure
that we are all on the same page before actually moving forward, or at
least we should know what is the actual pivot point.
I did not pose a quiz for you, there are just 4 technical questions. You
strongly disagree that the te
Oh, just noticed that the design doc has been committed to master and
branch-2 directly. I'm not sure if this is the correct way but since it is
already like this, let's just fix it on master and branch-2.
Then there is no blocker on the merge of the feature branch any more.
Change my vote to +1.
On Thu, Nov 19, 2020 at 12:53 AM 张铎(Duo Zhang)
wrote:
> Oh, just noticed that the design doc has been committed to master and
> branch-2 directly. I'm not sure if this is the correct way but since it is
> already like this, let's just fix it on master and branch-2.
>
> Then there is no blocker on
Thank you for providing actionable feedback Duo.
I also thank you personally for adjusting your vote, as it unblocks
everyone here.
On Thu, Nov 19, 2020 at 12:53 AM 张铎(Duo Zhang)
wrote:
> Oh, just noticed that the design doc has been committed to master and
> branch-2 directly. I'm not sure i
Thank you all for the vote! Let me follow up on HBASE-25284.
Best Regards,
Huaxiang
On Thu, Nov 19, 2020 at 9:05 AM Andrew Purtell wrote:
> Thank you for providing actionable feedback Duo.
>
> I also thank you personally for adjusting your vote, as it unblocks
> everyone here.
>
>
>
> On Thu, N
20 matches
Mail list logo
