hbase-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ted Yu <yuzhih...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: DISCUSSION: 1.0.0
Date Mon, 28 Jul 2014 23:37:35 GMT
I started with https://reviews.apache.org/r/23175/

Will continue reviewing this week.


On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 1:40 PM, Aditya <adityakishore@gmail.com> wrote:

> Did anyone get a chance to take a look at the patches?
>
> Regards,
> aditya...
>
>
> On Sun, Jul 20, 2014 at 8:37 PM, Aditya <adityakishore@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > The wrapper jar is part of the first patch, which is in git mailbox patch
> > format.
> >
> >
> > On Sat, Jul 19, 2014 at 2:03 AM, Ted Yu <yuzhihong@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> You may want to attach the wrapper jar to the JIRA directly.
> >>
> >> Cheers
> >>
> >> On Jul 19, 2014, at 1:52 AM, Aditya <adityakishore@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> Looks like the regular patch command skips any binary included in
> patches.
> >>
> >>
> >> On Sat, Jul 19, 2014 at 1:37 AM, Aditya <adityakishore@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Thanks for taking a look Ted!
> >>>
> >>> Looks like the second patch created with "git diff" excluded the Gradle
> >>> wrapper JAR from the patch.
> >>>
> >>> I would generate a new one which includes this this jar. In the
> >>> meantime, you should be able to use the first patch attached to the
> JIRA
> >>> which is in git-am format and that would let you build.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On Fri, Jul 18, 2014 at 3:40 PM, Ted Yu <yuzhihong@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Nice work, Aditya.
> >>>>
> >>>> Looks like the hbase-native-client profile requires gradle ?
> >>>>
> >>>>      [exec] Error: Could not find or load main class
> >>>> org.gradle.wrapper.GradleWrapperMain
> >>>>
> >>>> Will take a look at your patch.
> >>>>
> >>>> Cheers
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> On Fri, Jul 18, 2014 at 3:08 PM, Aditya <adityakishore@gmail.com>
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> As requested, I have attached a combined patch to the umbrella JIRA
> >>>>> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-1015> and submitted
it
> to
> >>>>>
> >>>>> jenkins.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Would be great if someone could take a look and provide feedback.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Regards,
> >>>>> aditya...
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On Wed, Jul 9, 2014 at 7:05 PM, Aditya <adityakishore@gmail.com>
> >>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> > I was hoping to get some initial comments before attaching
patches
> >>>>> for the
> >>>>> > build boat.
> >>>>> >
> >>>>> > I have broken the entire code into 5 patch sets, layered in
a
> >>>>> sequnce,
> >>>>> > each focusing on a particular area (public headers/JNI
> >>>>> > implementation/Examples+unit test, etc) for the ease of review.
> >>>>> >
> >>>>> > https://reviews.apache.org/r/23175/
> >>>>> > https://reviews.apache.org/r/23176/
> >>>>> > https://reviews.apache.org/r/23177/
> >>>>> > https://reviews.apache.org/r/23178/
> >>>>> > https://reviews.apache.org/r/23179/
> >>>>> >
> >>>>> > These are also available as a sequence of patches as the pull
> request
> >>>>> > <https://github.com/apache/hbase/pull/1>.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> >
> >>>>> > Only the last patch hooks everything to the HBase build process
> >>>>> > (optionally) and hence I was thinking of squashing these separate
> >>>>> patches
> >>>>> > into a single patch to be submitted for build.
> >>>>> >
> >>>>> >
> >>>>> > On Wed, Jul 9, 2014 at 11:32 AM, Nick Dimiduk <ndimiduk@gmail.com>
> >>>>> wrote:
> >>>>> >
> >>>>> >> This ticket has only open subtasks, ie nothing in 'patch
> >>>>> available'. I
> >>>>> >> assume you mean HBASE-10168. We'll see about getting you
some
> >>>>> reviews, but
> >>>>> >> you should also go about formatting the patch for buildbot.
Also,
> >>>>> since
> >>>>> >> your 3 reviews are individually 100+k, you should consider
> breaking
> >>>>> them
> >>>>> >> into three separate tickets.
> >>>>> >>
> >>>>> >> my 2¢
> >>>>> >> -n
> >>>>> >>
> >>>>> >>
> >>>>> >> On Mon, Jul 7, 2014 at 12:01 PM, Aditya <adityakishore@gmail.com>
> >>>>> wrote:
> >>>>> >>
> >>>>> >>> Sorry about that.
> >>>>> >>>
> >>>>> >>> Here is the umbrella JIRA
> >>>>> >>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-1015
> >>>>> >>>
> >>>>> >>>
> >>>>> >>> On Mon, Jul 7, 2014 at 10:05 AM, Nick Dimiduk <
> ndimiduk@gmail.com>
> >>>>> >>> wrote:
> >>>>> >>>
> >>>>> >>>> Would you mind including the JIRA numbers along
with the
> request?
> >>>>> >>>>
> >>>>> >>>> Thanks,
> >>>>> >>>> Nick
> >>>>> >>>>
> >>>>> >>>>
> >>>>> >>>> On Mon, Jul 7, 2014 at 9:52 AM, Aditya <adityakishore@gmail.com
> >
> >>>>> wrote:
> >>>>> >>>>
> >>>>> >>>>> Do we want to have the C APIs part of 1.0.0
release. I had
> >>>>> posted few
> >>>>> >>>>> patches and a set of review request sometime
last week.
> >>>>> >>>>>
> >>>>> >>>>>
> >>>>> >>>>> On Fri, Jul 4, 2014 at 1:21 AM, Enis Söztutar
<
> >>>>> enis.soz@gmail.com>
> >>>>> >>>>> wrote:
> >>>>> >>>>>
> >>>>> >>>>> > On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 4:41 PM, Mikhail
Antonov <
> >>>>> >>>>> olorinbant@gmail.com>
> >>>>> >>>>> > wrote:
> >>>>> >>>>> >
> >>>>> >>>>> > > Moved ZK watcher & listener subtask
out of scope
> >>>>> HBASE-10909. Enis
> >>>>> >>>>> - with
> >>>>> >>>>> > > that, I guess HBASE-10909 can be
marked in branch-1?
> >>>>> >>>>> > >
> >>>>> >>>>> >
> >>>>> >>>>> > Sounds good.
> >>>>> >>>>> >
> >>>>> >>>>> >
> >>>>> >>>>> > >
> >>>>> >>>>> > > HBASE-11464 - this is the jira where
I'll capture tasks to
> >>>>> >>>>> abstract hbase
> >>>>> >>>>> > > client from ZK (mostly it would be
post-1.0 work).
> >>>>> >>>>> > >
> >>>>> >>>>> >
> >>>>> >>>>> > Not sure whether we can make it fully
backwards compatible
> >>>>> with 1.0
> >>>>> >>>>> > clients. I guess we will see when the
patches are done.
> >>>>> >>>>> >
> >>>>> >>>>> >
> >>>>> >>>>> > >
> >>>>> >>>>> > > Thanks,
> >>>>> >>>>> > > Mikhail
> >>>>> >>>>> > >
> >>>>> >>>>> > >
> >>>>> >>>>> > > 2014-07-03 12:52 GMT-07:00 Stack
<stack@duboce.net>:
> >>>>> >>>>> > >
> >>>>> >>>>> > > > On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 12:25
PM, Mikhail Antonov <
> >>>>> >>>>> olorinbant@gmail.com
> >>>>> >>>>> > >
> >>>>> >>>>> > > > wrote:
> >>>>> >>>>> > > >
> >>>>> >>>>> > > > > Guys,
> >>>>> >>>>> > > > >
> >>>>> >>>>> > > > > getting back to ZK abstraction
work w.r.t. release 1.0
> >>>>> and
> >>>>> >>>>> > thereafter,
> >>>>> >>>>> > > > some
> >>>>> >>>>> > > > > status update. So as we're
getting closer to complete
> >>>>> >>>>> HBASE-10909, it
> >>>>> >>>>> > > > looks
> >>>>> >>>>> > > > > like the steps may be like
this:
> >>>>> >>>>> > > > >
> >>>>> >>>>> > > > >  - there are 2 subtasks
out there not closed yet, one
> of
> >>>>> which
> >>>>> >>>>> is
> >>>>> >>>>> > about
> >>>>> >>>>> > > > log
> >>>>> >>>>> > > > > splitting (and Sergey S
has submitted a patch for
> >>>>> review),
> >>>>> >>>>> another is
> >>>>> >>>>> > > > > abstraction of ZK watcher
(this is what I've been
> >>>>> working on
> >>>>> >>>>> in the
> >>>>> >>>>> > > > > background; but after sketching
the patch it seems like
> >>>>> >>>>> without being
> >>>>> >>>>> > > > able
> >>>>> >>>>> > > > > to modify the control flows
and some changes in the
> >>>>> module
> >>>>> >>>>> structure,
> >>>>> >>>>> > > > it'd
> >>>>> >>>>> > > > > be a lot of scaffolding
code not really simplifying
> >>>>> current
> >>>>> >>>>> code). So
> >>>>> >>>>> > > I'd
> >>>>> >>>>> > > > > propose to descope abstraction
of ZK watcher jira
> >>>>> >>>>> (HBASE-11073),
> >>>>> >>>>> > > namely:
> >>>>> >>>>> > > > > convert it to top-level
JIRA and continue to work on it
> >>>>> >>>>> separately;
> >>>>> >>>>> > > > rename
> >>>>> >>>>> > > > > HBASE-10909 to "ZK abstraction:
phase 1", and mark it
> as
> >>>>> >>>>> closed as
> >>>>> >>>>> > soon
> >>>>> >>>>> > > > as
> >>>>> >>>>> > > > > log splitting jira is completed.
This way HBASE-10909
> >>>>> fits to
> >>>>> >>>>> > branch-1.
> >>>>> >>>>> > > > >
> >>>>> >>>>> > > >
> >>>>> >>>>> > > > Sounds good to me.
> >>>>> >>>>> > > >
> >>>>> >>>>> > > >
> >>>>> >>>>> > > > >  - secondly, in the discussion
to the CatalogTracker
> >>>>> patch, we
> >>>>> >>>>> > started
> >>>>> >>>>> > > > > talking about modifying
client to not know about ZK,
> but
> >>>>> >>>>> rather keep
> >>>>> >>>>> > > the
> >>>>> >>>>> > > > > location of current masters
and talk to them using RPC
> >>>>> calls.
> >>>>> >>>>> This
> >>>>> >>>>> > work
> >>>>> >>>>> > > > can
> >>>>> >>>>> > > > > not go into branch-1, as
it involves invasive changes
> in
> >>>>> client
> >>>>> >>>>> > > including
> >>>>> >>>>> > > > > new RPC. As I understand
the branching schema now,
> those
> >>>>> >>>>> changes can
> >>>>> >>>>> > go
> >>>>> >>>>> > > > to
> >>>>> >>>>> > > > > master branch, we just
don't merge them to branch-1,
> and
> >>>>> >>>>> depending on
> >>>>> >>>>> > > > their
> >>>>> >>>>> > > > > completeness we can pull
them to 1.1 release or so.
> >>>>> >>>>> > > > >
> >>>>> >>>>> > > >
> >>>>> >>>>> > > > You have it right Mikhail.
> >>>>> >>>>> > > >
> >>>>> >>>>> > > > St.Ack
> >>>>> >>>>> > > >
> >>>>> >>>>> > >
> >>>>> >>>>> > >
> >>>>> >>>>> > >
> >>>>> >>>>> > > --
> >>>>> >>>>> > > Thanks,
> >>>>> >>>>> > > Michael Antonov
> >>>>> >>>>> > >
> >>>>> >>>>> >
> >>>>> >>>>>
> >>>>> >>>>
> >>>>> >>>>
> >>>>> >>>
> >>>>> >>
> >>>>> >
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>
> >
>

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