hbase-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jean-Marc Spaggiari <jean-m...@spaggiari.org>
Subject Re: [UPDATE] Finishing up 0.96 --> WAS Re: 0.95 and 0.96 remaining issues
Date Sat, 03 Aug 2013 21:43:52 GMT
Is it HBASE-9121 ?

2013/8/3 Andrew Purtell <apurtell@apache.org>

> Is there a patch available for the tracing work mentioned? I don't think
> I've seen anything about it.
>
>
> On Saturday, August 3, 2013, Stack wrote:
>
> > On Sat, Jul 27, 2013 at 2:52 PM, Stack <stack@duboce.net <javascript:;>>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > The end of July is upon us.  I intend to cut a 0.95.2 next weekend and
> > > 0.95.2 will be 0.96.0 but for bug fixes and migration polish.  No more
> > > 'features' will be allowed after next weekend.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > I have done some moving around of hbase 0.95.2 issues [1] to reflect
> what
> > > the priorities are for this week (to my mind).  It is all about polish,
> > bad
> > > bugs, unit test failures, and packaging/publishing/build issues.
> > >
> > > I'll be working on the blockers this week [2].  A few are in need of
> > > reviews; e.g. "HBASE-3787 Increment is non-idempotent but client
> retries
> > > RPC".  Feel free to take over any blockers if you'd like to help out:
> > e.g.
> > > "HBASE-7386 Investigate providing some supervisor support for znode
> > > deletion"
> > >
> > > Criticals [3] are mostly just unit test issues that are probably fixed
> by
> > > now and another few that are patches in need of test/review: e.g.
> > > "HBASE-8874 PutCombiner is skipping KeyValues while combining puts of
> > same
> > > row during bulkload" and "HBASE-8778 Region assigments scan table
> > directory
> > > making them slow for huge tables".
> > >  "HBASE-6127 TestAtomicOperation#testMultiRowMutationMultiThreads
> > > occasionally fails" is a bad one in need of attention.  Again, if up
> for
> > > helping out, be our guest.
> > >
> > > There are some great patches hanging out in the priority major issues
> > > section that are patch available that could be committed but for want
> of
> > > review: e.g. "HBASE-8369 MapReduce over snapshot files".
> > >
> > > Regards the big features that are racing to make the 0.96 cutoff --
> > namely
> > > namespaces, tags, and serialization lib -- as I see it, Francis needs
> > > reviews if namespaces are to make it, tags ditto, and the serialization
> > > libs are nice-to-have auxillaries that can come in at any time.  If not
> > > done by the end of this week, then as I see it, these features do not
> > make
> > > the cut.
> > >
> > > Unit tests are mostly passing.  The problematics are being worked on
> > (e.g.
> > > JD is on the replication set -- it likely a real problem rather than a
> > > flakey test).
> > >
> > > How's the above sound?
> > > St.Ack
> > >
> > > P.S. It is late but if folks want to meet this week to hack in patches
> > > together, just say.  I could organize an afternoon or day if you all
> > think
> > > it would be a good idea.
> > >
> > > 1.
> > >
> >
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE/fixforversion/12320040#selectedTab=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.project%3Aversion-issues-panel
> > > 2.
> > >
> >
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=project%20%3D%20HBASE%20AND%20fixVersion%20%3D%20%220.95.2%22%20AND%20resolution%20%3D%20Unresolved%20AND%20priority%20%3D%20Blocker%20ORDER%20BY%20key%20DESC
> > > 3.
> > >
> >
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=project%20%3D%20HBASE%20AND%20fixVersion%20%3D%20%220.95.2%22%20AND%20resolution%20%3D%20Unresolved%20AND%20priority%20%3D%20Critical%20ORDER%20BY%20key%20DESC
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > UPDATE:
> >
> > I was to cut 0.95.2 this weekend.  I am pushing out the cut-date to Weds
> or
> > so of next week.  The gating factor is namespaces.  It needs a few more
> > days of patch cycling.  I'll cut 0.95.2 after it goes in.  It'll be the
> > last feature on the 0.95/0.96 branch.  Thereafter, only bug fixes,
> > migration cleanup, and doc additions will be allowed (0.96.0RC will
> follow
> > soon after the 0.95.2 developer release goes out).
> >
> > It looks like the serialization ilb will make the cut, API+Ordering; Nick
> > has signed-on some consumers it seems.
> >
> > On KV tags, we have an outstanding -1 but -1s can change; lets see what
> the
> > new posted patch looks like.
> >
> > Elliott has fancy-pants tracing that he should be able to get in before
> > 0.95.2.
> >
> > On the dodgy-looking outstanding blockers:
> >
> > "HBASE-3787 Increment is non-idempotent but client retries RPC" still
> needs
> > reviews.  It is a difficult problem well-researched by our Sergey;
> perhaps
> > this does not make it?
> >
> > On "HBASE-7386 Investigate providing some supervisor support for znode
> > deletion" we could doc. the "ugly" wrapper/watcher process with why it
> > exists and suggest it should be supervise instead (with a template) but
> > this could be post release?
> >
> > Criticals seem to be all in good hands wanting a bit of testing or a last
> > review.  Lets get them in.
> >
> > Reviewing the major issues, I do not see anything we should hold up the
> > release; please speak up if you think different (How about HBASE-7667,
> the
> > stripe compaction work or the fsync work in HBASE-5954?.
> >
> > On unit tests, we are mostly passing now as reported a few days ago.
>  There
> > are a few flakies that would be sweet to purge; e.g:
> >
> > HBASE-7980 TestZKInterProcessReadWriteLock fails occasionally in QA test
> > run
> > HBASE-9023 TestIOFencing.testFencingAroundCompactionAfterWALSync
> >
> > TestDistributedLogSplitting can go 'invisibile' on occasion; i.e. tests
> > fail it is only one absent from list of completed tests.
> >
> > But unit tests are looking good on 0.95 and trunk:
> > https://builds.apache.org/view/H-L/view/HBase/
> >
> > Your RM,
> > St.Ack
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> > > On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 1:14 PM, Stack <stack@duboce.net> wrote:
> > >
> > >> I am shooting for end of July for 0.96 being 'complete'.   I would
> like
> > >> to make a 0.96 release in August.  We have some criticals outstanding
> > but I
> > >> think we could ship even if these are not fixed in time (excepting
> > >> migration polish and of course remaining build fixes).  See [1.] for
> the
> > >> current list of issues.  Please re-prioritize issues as you see fit
> (or
> > >> better, move issues out of 0.95.2 if you do not think they will be
> done
> > in
> > >> time).
> > >>
> > >> What to do with namespaces -- the last 0.96 'feature' -- given the
> above
> > >> timeline?  Currently it is a massive patch out on a branch.  It is
> still
> > >> not done, in want of review, and the author is going on holidays for a
> > few
> > >> weeks soon.  My thinking as of now, going by the rate of change over
> the
> > >> last few weeks and estimating what is yet to be done, is that
> namespaces
> > >> will not make it.  I am willing to be convinced otherwise but that is
> > how
> > >> it looks to me currently.
> > >>
> > >> I am going to start just disabling flakey unit tests in 0.95 from here
> > on
> > >> out.  When folks get the itch, they can fix at leisure first on trunk
> > and
> > >> then over in 0.95.
> > >>
> > >> What else?
> > >>
> > >> Thanks,
> > >> St.Ack
> > >>
> > >> 1.
> > >>
> >
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE/fixforversion/12320040#selectedTab=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.project%3Aversion-issues-panel
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 8:45 PM, Stack <stack@duboce.net> wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> (Changed the subject)
> > >>>
> > >>> On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 4:04 PM, Nick Dimiduk <ndimiduk@gmail.com
> > >wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>>> I want to see initial data type APIs ship out with 0.95.2. A patch
> for
> > >>>> ordered byte serialization is up (HBASE-8201) and is nearing
> > >>>> steady-state.
> > >>>> However, sershe is the only person who's left feedback. I just
> posted
> > an
> > >>>> early patch for the data type API itself (HBASE-8693). It should
get
> > >>>> some
> > >>>> eyes from all manor of interested parties, but I'll settle for
folk
> > from
> > >>>> Phoenix for now.
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>> It would be cool if Phoenix and Kiji fellows and any one else
> > interested
> > >>> would weigh in and take a look see.
> > >>>
> > >>> This does not strike me as something we should hold up the release
> for
> > >>> though.  It looks like something that could go in at any time?
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>> Should these tasks be escalated to criticals in order to grab
> > attention?
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>> I don't think that works going by past experience (and I don't think
> > >>> this a blocker on 0.96)
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>> Additional comments inline.
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>> ...
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>>  Namespaces is the long pole and progress seems slow.  Do we hold
up
> > the
> > >>>> > release for them?  How can we hurry this effort along?  Swat
team
> > >>>> descends
> > >>>> > on Y!?
> > >>>> >
> > >>>>
> > >>>> It would be a shame to not get a decision on this in for 0.96.
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>> Agree.  We need to get 0.96 out though.  It has been too long.
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>>  + Is anyone testing?  Integration tests fail on ec2 build from
time
> > to
> > >>>> time
> > >>>> > [2].  Our Elliott dug in on one of the failures a few days
back
> and
> > >>>> found
> > >>>> > legit issue w/ no retry on admin tasks (I heart hbase-it tests).
> >  Our
> >
>
>
> --
> 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