hbase-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Andrew Purtell <apurt...@apache.org>
Subject Re: dynamic RPC and coprocessor changes
Date Wed, 06 Oct 2010 03:17:41 GMT
> It's not a matter of viewing it as second-class, but more
> that it's not necessarily within scope for this exact
> release -- in general we have always talked about 0.90 as 
> a release where we focus on stability and durability. 

What of replication?

Or HFOF? 

Or the recent Result changes?

None are in scope for a stability and durability release.

HBASE-2001 has been little changed for 6 months. We've made incremental changes to the server
side framework but it's been basically as stable as possible given the changes around it.
Then, Gary added a big push with a lot of work on client side support. This part is newer,
I grant you that.

That it has not received as much review or experience as perhaps you would like means mainly
that other HBase committers have had other priorities. 

That does not mean we do not deserve due consideration.

   - Andy

> From: Todd Lipcon <todd@cloudera.com>
> Subject: Re: dynamic RPC and coprocessor changes
> To: dev@hbase.apache.org
> Cc: "apurtell@apache.org" <apurtell@apache.org>
> Date: Tuesday, October 5, 2010, 7:57 PM
> I agree with Jon here.
> 
> It's not a matter of viewing it as second-class, but more
> that it's not
> necessarily within scope for this exact release -- in
> general we have always
> talked about 0.90 as a release where we focus on stability
> and durability. A
> giant new framework (awesome though it is) seems less
> important for this
> specific dot release. I also agree that we need to have a
> few more use cases
> developed to flesh out the API and get more exposure before
> merging.
> 
> The idea of the development release series was to give
> people exposure to
> stuff (and get testing) before it ended up in a so-called
> "stable" release.
> A large merge should definitely go through at least one or
> two dev releases
> before showing up in an even-numbered .0. I would also
> support a
> "coprocessors preview" release done in parallel with 0.90,
> available on the
> Apache download page, that would let interested people get
> involved and try
> the branch before it's part of trunk.
> 
> For the same reasons, I also wanted to release
> 0.89.20100924 as 0.90 and
> push off the new master to 92, but I think I lost that one
> :)
> 
> I also agree strongly with Jon that we should immediately
> start an 0.91 DR
> series with coprocessors merged as soon as 0.90 is
> released. We have some
> good momentum, and moving quickly towards the next bit will
> help keep it up.
> 
> -Todd
> 
> On Tue, Oct 5, 2010 at 7:30 PM, Jonathan Gray <jgray@facebook.com>
> wrote:
> 
> > Committing this stuff onto trunk the day before a
> feature freeze and as we
> > move towards stability gives me a little bit of the
> fear.
> >
> > I completely understand that it's been worked on for
> quite some time and
> > think this stuff is awesome.  But I still wish I
> had more time to give it
> > further review and to actually take this stuff for a
> test spin.  Right now
> > that's just not possible with all the work to be done
> stabilizing and
> > testing trunk (and I think time is best spent right
> now stabilizing the
> > master/rs versus new features).
> >
> > Personally, I have a bunch of fairly sweeping
> compaction, flush, and split
> > changes that have been partially reviewed but I
> haven't had the time to push
> > them over the finish line.  I hope to get them in
> immediately after an 0.90
> > branch is cut and trunk becomes 0.92.  This
> should be rather soon.  I'd like
> > to see 0.92 get released in short order after 0.90 as
> there are lots of
> > changes that just have not made it into 0.90
> yet.  So even if we waited to
> > commit, we could work hard towards the next major
> release (I don't think
> > there are any major rewrites planned)  :)
> >
> > With this kind of big change and addition of new APIs,
> my preference would
> > be to have it committed early in a trunk cycle (versus
> immediately before a
> > release is cut).  That way, we can play with it
> ourselves, see how it works,
> > try out some of our own ideas for usage of CPs, etc...
> In doing that, I
> > would expect there would be suggestions for changes in
> the API, additions to
> > the API, naming changes to be more clear from a
> non-implementer POV, etc...
> >
> > By putting it in immediately before a release, the
> original API can't be
> > broken, class names can't be changed, all would need
> to be deprecated,
> > etc...
> >
> > The other issue I have with the current CP code that I
> have read is the
> > number of new classes introduced into existing core
> packages (especially
> > clent).  Looking at some of their names, they are
> generic sounding and it's
> > not clear to me without digging in that they are part
> of coprocessors.  Is
> > it possible to move CP stuff into client.cp packages
> and the like?  Or
> > prefix with CoProc or some way to keep this stuff
> separated?
> >
> > I apologize for dropping this on you now and if no one
> else feels the same,
> > I am not going to spoil the party.
> >
> > But is it critical that this gets into 0.90 and into a
> release now?  Could
> > we wait for 0.92 and get this committed in a couple
> weeks and allowed to
> > mature a bit on trunk before it's released?
> >
> > JG
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Andrew Purtell [mailto:apurtell@apache.org]
> > > Sent: Tuesday, October 05, 2010 7:14 PM
> > > To: dev@hbase.apache.org
> > > Subject: dynamic RPC and coprocessor changes
> > >
> > > We've been nursing dynamic RPC and coprocessor
> changes for a couple of
> > > weeks now and don't see any failures beyond what
> are already on trunk
> > > with them applied.
> > >
> > > I was going to apply them tonight but will wait
> until tomorrow given
> > > that trunk is already disrupted a little.
> > >
> > > Best regards,
> > >
> > >     - Andy
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> 
> 
> -- 
> Todd Lipcon
> Software Engineer, Cloudera
> 


      


Mime
View raw message