hbase-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Nicolas Liochon <nkey...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [DISCUSSION] Sorting out issues for 0.96 for (eventual) release
Date Wed, 09 Jan 2013 12:45:56 GMT
It would be great to have a release soon.
The migration will require some work from the user point of view: if I'm
not wrong it's mandatory to rewrite the coprocessors and the filters (even
if it's not mandatory, it seems to be a reasonable task to include in the
migration).
For this reason, I think there should be a stable-enough beta release that
people could use to start this migration. Our contract would be to keep the
coprocessor & filter API stable between the beta and the RC. But it won't
be to have no regression nor new features between the beta & the RC. And
this would send a signal "now we're focusing on the delivery".

For the JDK 1.7, so far the changes we're doing for the support are not
something we would refuse to do in a 96.1 release: I mean we're not going
to say: "to run on 1.7 we need to do X, and X is to risky to be done on a
minor release". So it could be removed from the critical path.

For MTTR, there are still a lot of stuff to be done, but it's a never
ending task. There's my work on assignment, but I don't break the existing
logic, and it's finishing. MTTR is bigger than that, but there will be new
ideas, so if we wait for the end of this we will never deliver. And real
world feedback is valuable. So I setting an arbitrary target would be
acceptable for this specific point imho (objective for MTTR beeing to be
always under 1 minute for total recovery time).

May be some stuff could make it as a contrib as well (i.e. secondary
indexes)?

Cheers,

Nicolas




On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 5:05 AM, Andrew Purtell <apurtell@apache.org> wrote:

> Ted you seem to have picked some random part of this conversation and
> misunderstood it?
>
> On Tuesday, January 8, 2013, Ted Yu wrote:
>
> > User has the flexibility of running 0.96 on jdk 1.6
> >
> > Cheers
> >
> > On Tue, Jan 8, 2013 at 7:59 PM, Andrew Purtell <apurtell@apache.org
> <javascript:;>>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > What do these two things have to do with each other?
> > >
> > > On Tuesday, January 8, 2013, Ted Yu wrote:
> > >
> > > > bq. depends on other communities because quite a bit seems broken on
> > JDK
> > > 7
> > > > so I hear
> > > >
> > > > I have been running tests using 1.6.0_37 for trunk. Tests run
> smoothly
> > so
> > > > far.
> > > >
> > > > FYI
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, Jan 8, 2013 at 10:32 AM, Andrew Purtell <apurtell@apache.org
> <javascript:;>
> > > <javascript:;>>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > On Tue, Jan 8, 2013 at 10:21 AM, Stack <stack@duboce.net
> <javascript:;>
> > <javascript:;>>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > > That said, I think we should make up a list of what people
want
> > to
> > > > see
> > > > > > in,
> > > > > > > and what could/should be excluded after we find that consensus.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > High-level, we have had this discussion IMO ([3]).  Would you
> like
> > to
> > > > do
> > > > > it
> > > > > > again Andrew?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Otherwise, I think folks need to bubble up critical issues (or
> > strike
> > > > > them
> > > > > > down) and if any controversial, lets discuss them?
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Some time has elapsed since that discussion, I think we should do
> it
> > > > again.
> > > > >
> > > > > For example, the notion of running on JDK 7 is new, and depends on
> > > other
> > > > > communities because quite a bit seems broken on JDK 7 so I hear.
> The
> > > > creep
> > > > > of "-Djava.net.preferIPv4=true" among Hadoop ecosystem projects is
> > > also a
> > > > > concern, and it bothers me that HDFS tests seem DOA without it on
> my
> > > dev
> > > > > box, so this also isn't something we are going to be able to solve
> > > > entirely
> > > > > on our own. So while I think these are serious concerns, I have
> mixed
> > > > > feelings about them being prerequisites for a 0.96 release.
> > > > >
> > > > > A bunch of hard thoughtful intermingled work is underway in RPC and
> > > HFile
> > > > > and other places, so that we only need to do a "singularity" once.
> We
> > > > > should do a feature based release for this, not a time based one,
> is
> > my
> > > > > opinion. As for everything else, setting a target and seeing what
> > falls
> > > > in
> > > > > or out based on that is worth doing.
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > 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)
>

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