hbase-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Enis Söztutar <enis....@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Merge branch HBASE-10070 to trunk
Date Sat, 07 Jun 2014 00:05:16 GMT
My preference would be to do the rebase-then-merge style (last style in
your comment). For each patch, I am hoping for all the changes between
committed version and rebased version to be mechanical. I like having a
linear history with explicit commit-to-patch mapping.

Can we do history-preserving merge with the first style? I can do the
rebases and upload interdiff if that is big so that we can compare on a
per-patch basis.

Enis


On Fri, Jun 6, 2014 at 4:36 PM, Jonathan Hsieh <jon@cloudera.com> wrote:

> When we merged snapshots branch in we did this:
>
> t = trunk commit
> s = snapshot branch commit
> m = merge point.
>
> During work:
> t
> t
> t
> |  s3
> |  s2
> |  s1
> |/
> t
> t
>
> During after merge:
> m  (essentially empty merge patch).
> t \
> t |
> t |
> | s4* (fixups due to the merge)
> | s3
> | s2
> | s1
> |/
> t
> t
>
> Does your proposal mean you are going to do this instead?
>
> s3* (modified due to rebase)
> s2* (modified due to rebase)
> s1
> t
> t
> t
> | s (now dead hbase-10070 branch)
> | s
> | s
> | s
> |/
> t
> t
>
> If it is the then we should probably have a review of the modified patches.
>  If it the same as the snapshot merge, then we just need a review of the
> merge point delta (as well as a full review).
>
> Personally I prefer the merge for these large feature branches -- it
> guarantees that each commit is compilable, and reflects what you guys have
> been testing for a while.  If you go with the last approach you might have
> stuff broken, and in the mainline commit path.
>
> Jon.
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jun 3, 2014 at 11:16 AM, Andrew Purtell <apurtell@apache.org>
> wrote:
>
> >  ​
> > On Mon, Jun 2, 2014 at 2:24 PM, Enis Söztutar <enis@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> > > This VOTE is for merging back the remaining changes in branch to trunk.
> > If
> > > passes, we will rebase the branch on top of current trunk, in which we
> > will
> > > keep the commit-per-issue log history. After that we will do a git
> merge
> > > for the branch keeping the history clean and not squashing the
> commits. I
> > > expect rebasing to be straightforward, however with some manual
> conflict
> > > resolution. After the merge we'll keep running the tests to make sure
> > > everything is ok.
> > >
> >
> > ​Just to clarify that would look something like this:
> >
> >      $ git checkout HBASE-10070
> >      $ git rebase --ignore-date master
> >      (fixups, git add, git rebase --continue, etc, etc, etc)
> >      $ git checkout master
> >      $ git merge HBASE-10070
> >
> > ?
> >
> > That sounds good to me, the final merge should be a fast forward merge.
> >
> > Use of ' --ignore-date' could be mildly controversial. It's not strictly
> > necessary because the commits for 10070 will appear grouped in history,
> but
> > then dates on commits will be discontiguous in that section of history. I
> > suggest using that option so the order of commits and dates sort the same
> > on master.
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Jun 2, 2014 at 2:24 PM, Enis Söztutar <enis@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > Last week we started some discussion[4] for merging branch
> hbase-10070[1]
> > > into trunk. It seems like the consensus there is to do the merge sooner
> > > rather than later.
> > >
> > >
> > > We had branched hbase-10070 in Feb out of trunk[5]. The branch contains
> > 55
> > > jiras committed[2]. Out of these 55, 15 has already been committed to
> > trunk
> > > and backported to hbase-10070 branch[3].
> > >
> > > This VOTE is for merging back the remaining changes in branch to trunk.
> > If
> > > passes, we will rebase the branch on top of current trunk, in which we
> > will
> > > keep the commit-per-issue log history. After that we will do a git
> merge
> > > for the branch keeping the history clean and not squashing the
> commits. I
> > > expect rebasing to be straightforward, however with some manual
> conflict
> > > resolution. After the merge we'll keep running the tests to make sure
> > > everything is ok.
> > >
> > > An overview of the changes, and the status of the work can be found
> under
> > > [4], [6] and [7].In summary, with the code in branch, you can create
> > tables
> > > with region replicas, do gets / multi gets and scans using TIMELINE
> > > consistency with high availability. Region replicas periodically scan
> the
> > > files of the primary and pick up flushed / committed files. The RPC
> > paths /
> > > assignment, balancing etc are pretty stable. However some more
> > performance
> > > analysis and tuning is needed. Phase 2 work is being worked on under
> > > HBASE-11183, and we have some working prototype for async-replicating
> and
> > > region splits. However, we believe even without those features, this
> work
> > > is useable (especially for read-only/bulk load tables) , and can be
> > > released as an experimental feature in 1.0.
> > >
> > > Please indicate your choice:
> > >
> > > [ ] +1 on yes, merge branch hbase-10070 to trunk.
> > > [ ] 0 on don't care
> > > [ ] -1 don't merge, because ...
> > >
> > > I'll keep the vote running for 7 days, and close it Mon 9th of June,
> PDT.
> > >
> > > Here is my official +1.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Enis
> > >
> > > [1]
> > >
> > >
> >
> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=hbase.git;a=log;h=refs/heads/hbase-10070
> > > [2]
> > >
> > >
> >
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-11214?jql=fixVersion%20%3D%20hbase-10070%20AND%20project%20%3D%20HBASE%20AND%20status%20%3D%20resolved
> > > [3]
> > >
> > >
> >
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-10792?jql=fixVersion%20%3D%20hbase-10070%20and%20fixversion%20%3D%200.99.0%20AND%20project%20%3D%20HBASE%20AND%20status%20%3D%20resolved
> > > [4] https://www.mail-archive.com/dev@hbase.apache.org/msg25795.html
> > > [5]
> > >
> > >
> >
> https://github.com/apache/hbase/commit/e22c7efeac02efde3451a0c9ff9bdcd2725576d0
> > > [6]
> > >
> > >
> >
> http://www.slideshare.net/enissoz/hbase-high-availability-for-reads-with-time
> > > [7] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-10070
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Best regards,
> >
> >    - Andy
> >
> > Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet Hein
> > (via Tom White)
> >
>
>
>
> --
> // Jonathan Hsieh (shay)
> // HBase Tech Lead, Software Engineer, Cloudera
> // jon@cloudera.com // @jmhsieh
>

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