hbase-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From ramkrishna vasudevan <ramkrishna.s.vasude...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: 答复: Some notes from the HBase developer Pow-Wow
Date Thu, 21 Feb 2013 04:19:25 GMT
I checked this out.  I am able to hear the voice of the recording.

Regards
Ram

On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 7:26 AM, 谢良 <xieliang@xiaomi.com> wrote:

> Yes, i am able to hear the recording as well :)
>
> Regards,
> Liang
> ________________________________________
> 发件人: Dave Wang [dsw@cloudera.com]
> 发送时间: 2013年2月21日 0:28
> 收件人: dev@hbase.apache.org
> 主题: Re: Some notes from the HBase developer Pow-Wow
>
> Jean-Marc,
>
> I just tried it and am able to hear the recording.  Hmmm, not sure what to
> do here.  Any one else able to access the recording?
>
> - Dave
>
>
> On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 7:51 AM, Jean-Marc Spaggiari <
> jean-marc@spaggiari.org> wrote:
>
> > Hi Dave,
> >
> > I' tried to access the link.I 'm able to load it, but there is no
> > sound. Sound is working if I play any other video, but back to webex,
> > still not sound.
> >
> > Is it working for you?
> >
> > JM
> >
> > 2013/2/19, Dave Wang <dsw@cloudera.com>:
> > > Thanks for the summary Deveraj.
> > >
> > > The webex recording for the meeting is at:
> > >
> > >
> >
> https://cloudera.webex.com/cloudera/ldr.php?AT=pb&SP=MC&rID=120418137&rKey=d058765b798c47c5
> > >
> > > Please let me know if you cannot access it.
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > >
> > > - Dave
> > >
> > >
> > > On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 5:30 PM, Jean-Marc Spaggiari <
> > > jean-marc@spaggiari.org> wrote:
> > >
> > >> Awesome!
> > >>
> > >> Thanks a for those notes Devaraj!
> > >>
> > >> Very useful for the unfortunates who did not got the chance to join
> the
> > >> meeting ...
> > >> Le 19 févr. 2013 20:27, "Devaraj Das" <ddas@hortonworks.com> a écrit
> :
> > >>
> > >> > - Stabilizing 0.96 / CI
> > >> >   -- not running continuously
> > >> >   -- Roman:   is it a good idea to run IT under Bigtop
> > >> >        - the HBase unit tests are good..
> > >> >        - What about HBase as a backend for hive - tests for those
> > >> >        - Do we think there is value with the integration with the
> rest
> > >> > of the hadoop ecosystem
> > >> >   -- Jon: What's needed to make this work
> > >> >   -- Roman: Collective agreement that we want to solve this
> > >> >   -- Stack: We need to run the IT tests from Enis and Sergey running
> > >> > continuously
> > >> >   -- Roman: If we all agree that this is something needs to be fixed
> > >> > .. then yes we would talk about mechanics. Bigtop doesn't have
> > >> > expertise in HBase and hence HBase folks would have to debug
> failures.
> > >> >   -- Roman: Bigtop is committed to tests. Less than a dozen tests
> for
> > >> > hbase currently..
> > >> >   -- We have been running validation around RC time. Find all kinds
> of
> > >> > issues - sometimes trivial (maybe a config issue),
> > >> >   -- Roman can offer CI for trunk but will work for only hadoop-2
> > line.
> > >> >   -- Roman does first line of triage.
> > >> >   -- No issues to do with other ecosystem artifacts. Bigtop ensures
> > >> > the right artifacts are in place.
> > >> >   -- hadoop-2 is important but not particular about the version of
> > >> > hadoop within 2. For example 2.0.2
> > >> >   -- Gary: Will be good to run security tests
> > >> >   -- Roman & Devaraj to talk on how this can be done/implemented
> > >> >
> > >> > On 0.96 branching
> > >> > - Lars:
> > >> >    -- We will have three branches to maintain.
> > >> > - Stack: we need to stabilize quickly
> > >> > - Enis: What about 0.95.
> > >> > - Stack: Just do the snapshots thing. Every week, give a snapshot
> > >> > - Enis: we've done a bunch of stuff in RPC.. If we have to break
> > >> > something, we can if it is beta (0.96-beta).
> > >> > - Agreement is there generally ... Debate on the name with snapshot
> > >> > versus 95.0/96.0
> > >> >   -- 0.95 experimental .. 0.96 will be stable
> > >> >   -- If we go with 0.95, releasing will be easier as well..
> > >> >   -- 0.95 will not be in production..
> > >> >   -- 0.96 will be off 0.95 branch and not trunk based
> > >> >
> > >> > - How do we go about committing issues.. (issue commit rate is low)
> > >> >  -- 0.94 is stable -  2 new commits and 2 new bugs a day
> > >> >  -- 0.96 has lots of issues not reviewed
> > >> >  -- Break up the patch into multiple smaller pieces to make review
> > >> > easier
> > >> >  -- Branching on a big feature was suggested -
> > >> >    --- Issues: committer needs to be there
> > >> >          Sergey: If the rate of change is high on common code (to
> the
> > >> > branches) then merging will be tough
> > >> >    --- Jon: Refactor should be done in the main branch (since it
> > >> > doesn't add any new funtionality)
> > >> >    --- Release often to reduce #backports overall and issues with
> > >> > that..
> > >> >
> > >> > - Review process .. how to drive a review to closure. Effort goes
> > >> > waste if the review process is not completed. The same reviewer
> should
> > >> > continue to review the patch ..
> > >> > - Hard to enforce any process
> > >> > - Enis: there should be a summary of the patch and all that .. so
> that
> > >> > the review process is helped.. Hard to understand the architecture
> of
> > >> > the patch unless documented
> > >> > - Jon: It should be easy to make a one-to-one correspondence between
> > >> > the description and the patch
> > >> > - The commit should have only the jira# as opposed to pages of
> > >> description
> > >> >
> > >> > - Component owners: is this working. Committers need to be
> forthcoming
> > >> > with reviews
> > >> >   -- Maybe review the modules and add some more if needed.
> > >> >
> > >> >   -- Good that we have more contributions coming than we have
> > >> > reviewers, but unless we keep up, we will plateau
> > >> >   -- Mail on dev@ list if review doesn't happen
> > >> >
> > >> > - Dev co-ordination:
> > >> >  -- How best can we pull together
> > >> >  -- Priorities:
> > >> >    --- Getting 0.96 out is priority
> > >> >    --- Backports to 0.94 will happen .. until 0.96 is stable
> > >> >    --- 0.92 release ? Any committer who wants to make a release can
> do
> > >> > so (maybe with some backports, etc.)
> > >> >    --- Backporting can be tough if there are bugs and the bugfix has
> > >> > to be applied to all branches
> > >> >
> > >> > - HBASE-2600 - this requires a change in the client and the server.
> > >> > They have to be changed in lock-step. Its hard to do this .. Jon
> > >> > doesn't want to have the fix for 0.96. So 0.98 might be another
> > >> > singular release. Maybe do a rewrite of the meta after taking a lock
> > >> > on the meta, do a shim layer to handle the backward compat. between
> > >> > 0.96 and 0.98
> > >> >
> > >> > - What do people want to get into 0.94
> > >> >  -- The biggest thing - Snapshots, mostly new code, about a 3rd of
> the
> > >> > stuff in 0.94 already
> > >> >  -- Compactions improvments - no backport
> > >> >
> > >> > - How devs can better co-ordinate
> > >> >   -- Snapshots co-ordination working well
> > >> >   -- One page design is useful (makes it readable and all)
> > >> >   -- How about handling the stripe compaction - where an idea leads
> to
> > >> > a bunch of others
> > >> >   -- Again write-up should be done
> > >> >
> > >> > - Should we change the description to match the comments
> > >> >   -- Two ideas suggested:
> > >> >    ---  We probably should have the description updated with the
> > >> > "Date: new description" if the issue at hand is updated
> > >> >    --- Should we have a summary after a bunch of comments - yes
> > >> >
> > >> > - The face-to-face meetings are useful. We should semd out the
> minutes
> > >> > of the discussion to the dev list. We probably should have more
> > >> > focused huddles. Discuss but don't decide (decide on the jira)!
> > >> >
> > >> > - Jon: Would people be amenable to merge sooner rather than later
on
> > >> > snapshots? Tested and being beaten up.
> > >> > - Stack: Yes
> > >> >
> > >> > - What else goes in in 0.96:
> > >> >   -- RPC refactor
> > >> >   -- ROOT removal
> > >> >   -- Compaction stuff
> > >> >   -- Package name mailing list thread - there is now a jira on that.
> > >> > We shouldn't break clients. Package name changes is not worth the
> > >> > trouble.
> > >> >
> > >> > - A bunch of discussions on the RPC with KeyValue/Cells
> > >> >
> > >> > - What do we do about usability
> > >> >   -- It'll be nice if we don't need to change configs..
> > >> >   -- Maybe expose more metrics and then allow for online config
> > >> > changes since automatic config is difficult and needs to be battle
> > >> > tested and all.
> > >> >
> > >> > - Benchmarking of the release:
> > >> >   -- We should measure the overhead of PB stuff
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >
> >
>

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