accumulo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From dlmar...@comcast.net
Subject Re: [VOTE] ACCUMULO-3176
Date Tue, 25 Nov 2014 20:47:33 GMT
> It is true that the justification does not pertain directly to the stated 
> purpose of the change. However, this is not a cause for invalidity. A 
> change could be vetoed for breaking unrelated unit tests, or opening a 
> security hole, or slowing performance unacceptably. 

I could understand the veto if the change actually caused one of the issues mentioned above
or the issue that Sean is raising. But it does not. The eventual consistency of property updates
was an issue before this change and continues to be an issue. This JIRA did not attempt to
address the property update issue. 

----- Original Message -----

From: "Bill Havanki" <bhavanki@clouderagovt.com> 
To: "Accumulo Dev List" <dev@accumulo.apache.org> 
Sent: Tuesday, November 25, 2014 3:34:42 PM 
Subject: Re: [VOTE] ACCUMULO-3176 

I took a look at the review for the patch [1] and surveyed the comment 
stream for ACCUMULO-3176 in order to judge the validity of Sean's veto. I'm 
just looking at the veto, and not judging the merits of the change. 

ASF's voting process page [2] has this to say about validity. 

"To prevent vetos [sic] from being used capriciously, they must be 
accompanied by a technical justification showing why the change is bad 
(opens a security exposure, negatively affects performance, *etc.* ). A 
veto without a justification is invalid and has no weight." 

Sean's veto has this as a justification: "*This change alters our public 
API while not solving the underlying issue of **race conditions in property 
updates.*" 

- The justification is certainly not capricious. 
- The justification is certainly of a technical nature. 
- The justification states that the change is bad because it changes the 
API without solving the underlying issue. I expand that, based on Sean's 
comments, to the assertion that the risk of changing the public API for a 
partial solution is too high, and should wait for a complete solution. 
- The "showing" is in the review, which includes changes to the public API, 
and in commentary on the topic, which admits on all sides that the general 
problem isn't solved through it. 

Is the change "bad"? Is it "bad enough"? That could be considered, but I 
don't believe it is in the spirit of the process. The veto should propel 
further discussion and development of the solution; in fact, it already is. 

It is true that the justification does not pertain directly to the stated 
purpose of the change. However, this is not a cause for invalidity. A 
change could be vetoed for breaking unrelated unit tests, or opening a 
security hole, or slowing performance unacceptably. 

Based on the above, I deem the veto valid. 

[1] https://reviews.apache.org/r/26188/ 
[2] http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html 



On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 1:30 PM, Christopher <ctubbsii@apache.org> wrote: 

> I'm going to challenge the validity of that veto, because "solving the 
> underlying issue of race conditions in property updates" is not the 
> intended goal of the patch, or any stated side-effect. It also doesn't 
> preclude the pursuit of a solution for that issue. Comments about race 
> conditions for property updates was a related topic brought up in the JIRA 
> comments thread, not in the patch or the issue description. Rather, this 
> patch solves a very different problem: avoiding the need to alter 
> properties post-creation. This is an API improvement and helps in some 
> cases where properties are utilized immediately after creation, or anywhere 
> where somebody might want to create a table in fewer API calls. 
> 
> In accordance with our bylaws, another committer must now verify the 
> validity of your veto. 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Christopher L Tubbs II 
> http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii 
> 
> On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 1:10 PM, Sean Busbey <busbey@cloudera.com> wrote: 
> 
> > -1 
> > 
> > This change alters our public API while not solving the underlying issue 
> of 
> > race conditions in property updates. 
> > 
> > On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 11:14 AM, Christopher <ctubbsii@apache.org> 
> wrote: 
> > 
> > > Committers, this is a consensus vote on whether or not to include 
> Jenna's 
> > > patch for ACCUMULO-3176 to the 1.7.0-SNAPSHOT (master) branch. 
> > > 
> > > This patch improves the table creation API with the introduction of a 
> > > NewTableConfiguration object (similar to the pattern for 
> > > BatchWriterConfig), which allows us to be flexible on improving table 
> > > creation options in the future without creating many overloaded methods 
> > (as 
> > > the table creation API has been plagued by in the past). The main goal 
> of 
> > > the patch is to allow table properties to be set on a table at the time 
> > of 
> > > creation, before any tablets are assigned, but it also lays the 
> > foundation 
> > > for future table creation improvements. Creating initial table 
> properties 
> > > was already present in the RPC calls, but not exposed in the API. This 
> > can 
> > > support a number of use cases. 
> > > 
> > > Since an objection was raised by Sean Busbey (and a veto expected), 
> I've 
> > > initiated this vote in lieu of applying the patch under lazy consensus 
> so 
> > > that any veto votes can be justified and addressed here. 
> > > 
> > > Note: there are a few bugs in the Mock implementation of this that I've 
> > > fixed, as well as some minor deprecation warnings and javadoc 
> > improvements 
> > > I'm adding, please apply your vote under the assumption that those will 
> > be 
> > > fixed before it will be applied. 
> > > 
> > > Please vote in accordance with the bylaws for consensus voting. 
> > > My vote is +1. 
> > > 
> > > Thanks. 
> > > 
> > > -- 
> > > Christopher L Tubbs II 
> > > http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii 
> > > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > -- 
> > Sean 
> > 
> 



-- 
// Bill Havanki 
// Solutions Architect, Cloudera Govt Solutions 
// 443.686.9283 


Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message