hbase-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Mikhail Antonov <olorinb...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: DISCUSSION: 1.0.0
Date Mon, 25 Aug 2014 02:15:36 GMT
My 2 cents..

 - HBASE-10909 is pretty much completed, the only outstanding subtask is
about WAL splitting (HBASE-11072), and we seem to be on-track here (the
patch was/is being reviewed, thanks a lot for all the reviews!, and now
looks really close to the state when it could be committed I guess). I hope
this one will be finished coming week or a week after that.
 - On abstracting ZK client (HBASE-11464), and in particular, rewiring
clients connections to cluster (HBASE-11467), that's in progress and
patches are there for reviews and feedbacks, but these ones don't seem to
be fittable into 1.0.0 anyway, as they change cluster topology...Same for
coordination engine work (HADOOP-10641).

I may have capacity to review some patches if that would be useful.

-Mikhail




2014-08-24 18:19 GMT-07:00 Enis Söztutar <enis.soz@gmail.com>:

> Hey,
>
> Yeah, was busy with something else (HBASE-10070 subtasks) for the last
> couple of weeks. I intend to get back to 0.99 real soon.
>
> Any help would be awesome. I'll call out for an RC next week.
>
> Enis
>
>
> On Fri, Aug 22, 2014 at 1:47 PM, Stack <stack@duboce.net> wrote:
>
> > How we looking for a 0.99.0?
> >
> > I can go review of outstanding issue list np Enis, just say, but you
> > probably have a notion on where we are already.
> >
> > Grand,
> > St.Ack
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 2:35 AM, Aditya <adityakishore@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Thanks Ted!
> > >
> > >
> > > On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 4:37 PM, Ted Yu <yuzhihong@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > 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
> > > >> >>>>> >>>>> > >
> > > >> >>>>> >>>>> >
> > > >> >>>>> >>>>>
> > > >> >>>>> >>>>
> > > >> >>>>> >>>>
> > > >> >>>>> >>>
> > > >> >>>>> >>
> > > >> >>>>> >
> > > >> >>>>>
> > > >> >>>>
> > > >> >>>>
> > > >> >>>
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>



-- 
Thanks,
Michael Antonov

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