hbase-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Aditya <adityakish...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: DISCUSSION: 1.0.0
Date Fri, 18 Jul 2014 22:08:21 GMT
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