Thanks Stack, Josh and Andrew for your suggestions and concerns. I share Stack's suggestions. This would be similar to hbase-thirdparty. The new repo could be hbase-hbck/hbase-hbck2. As this tool will be used by hbase users/ developers, hbase JIRA can be used for hbck issues.
bq. How often does HBCK need to re-use methods and constants from code in hbase-common, hbase-server, etc? bq. Is it a goal to firm up API stability around this shared code. bq. If we do this can we also move out hbck version 1? As HBCK2 tool will be freshly written, we can try to achieve this goal. I think its great idea to move hbck1 to new repo as well. Though I think its more involved with hbck1 as the existing code already uses what it can from hbase-common and hbase-server etc. modules. bq. How often does HBCK make decisions on how to implement a correction based on some known functionality (e.g. a bug) in a specific version(s) of HBase. Concretely, would HBCK need to make corrections to an HBase installation that are specific to a subset of HBase 2.x.y versions that may not be valid for other 2.x.y versions? I see if this happens too often, compatibility metrics will be complicated. Thanks, Umesh On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 10:27 AM Andrew Purtell <apurt...@apache.org> wrote: > If we do this can we also move out hbck version 1? It would be really weird > in my opinion to have v2 in a separate repo but v1 shipping with the 1.x > releases. That would be a source of understandable confusion. > > I believe our compatibility guidelines allow us to upgrade interface > annotations from private to LP or Public and from LP to Public. These are > not changes that impact source or binary compatibility. They only change > the promises we make going forward about their stability. I believe we can > allow these in new minors, so we could potentially move hbck out in a > 1.5.0. > > > On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 4:46 PM Stack <st...@duboce.net> wrote: > > > On Thu, Jul 19, 2018 at 2:09 PM Umesh Agashe > <uaga...@cloudera.com.invalid > > > > > wrote: > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > I've had the opportunity to talk about HBCK2 with a few of you. One of > > the > > > suggestions is to to have a separate git repository for HBCK2. Lets > > discuss > > > about it. > > > > > > In the past when bugs were found in hbck, there is no easy way to > release > > > patched version of just hbck (without patching HBase). If HBCK2 has a > > > separate git repo, HBCK2 versions will not be tightly related to HBase > > > versions. Fixing and releasing hbck2, may not require patching HBase. > > > Though tight coupling will be somewhat loosened, HBCK2 will still > depend > > on > > > HBase APIs/ code. Caution will be required going forward regarding > > > compatibility. > > > > > > What you all think? > > > > > > > > I think this the way to go. > > > > We'd make a new hbase-hbck2 repo as we did for hbase-thirdparty? > > > > We'd use the hbase JIRA for hbase-hbck2 issues? > > > > We'd make hbase-hbck2 releases on occasion that the PMC voted on? > > > > Sounds great! > > St.Ack > > > > Thanks, > > > Umesh > > > > > > JIRA: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-19121. > > > Doc: > > > > > > > > > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1NxSFu4TKQ6lY-9J5qsCcJb9kZOnkfX66KMYsiVxBy0Y/edit?usp=sharing > > > > > > > > -- > Best regards, > Andrew > > Words like orphans lost among the crosstalk, meaning torn from truth's > decrepit hands > - A23, Crosstalk >
