Return-Path: X-Original-To: apmail-hbase-dev-archive@www.apache.org Delivered-To: apmail-hbase-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by minotaur.apache.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 1DE2C189B5 for ; Fri, 26 Feb 2016 20:27:47 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 51965 invoked by uid 500); 26 Feb 2016 20:27:44 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-hbase-dev-archive@hbase.apache.org Received: (qmail 51881 invoked by uid 500); 26 Feb 2016 20:27:44 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@hbase.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: dev@hbase.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list dev@hbase.apache.org Received: (qmail 51860 invoked by uid 99); 26 Feb 2016 20:27:44 -0000 Received: from mail-relay.apache.org (HELO mail-relay.apache.org) (140.211.11.15) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Fri, 26 Feb 2016 20:27:44 +0000 Received: from mail-lf0-f45.google.com (mail-lf0-f45.google.com [209.85.215.45]) by mail-relay.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at mail-relay.apache.org) with ESMTPSA id 53C271A01A6; Fri, 26 Feb 2016 20:27:43 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-lf0-f45.google.com with SMTP id m1so60567243lfg.0; Fri, 26 Feb 2016 12:27:43 -0800 (PST) X-Gm-Message-State: AD7BkJKlrgKcprUEB7oY76H77IAQvOpJKmnyN5+64O6OLoCf9FOzwTUqf8zaxZtT+JjuxNHcqMfa4D0SzFUtWQ== X-Received: by 10.25.91.71 with SMTP id p68mr1116298lfb.55.1456518461439; Fri, 26 Feb 2016 12:27:41 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.25.88.193 with HTTP; Fri, 26 Feb 2016 12:27:01 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: From: Andrew Purtell Date: Fri, 26 Feb 2016 12:27:01 -0800 X-Gmail-Original-Message-ID: Message-ID: Subject: Re: MOB in branch-1? (Re: [RESULT][VOTE] Merge branch hbase-11339 HBase MOB to trunk) To: "dev@hbase.apache.org" Cc: "user@hbase.apache.org" Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11418d1e80c945052cb2211b --001a11418d1e80c945052cb2211b Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable =E2=80=8BI think we need at least one success story or one very interested = user with a real project on the line to justify a backport. Otherwise it's a feature without any users - technically, abandoned. =E2=80=8B On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 10:11 AM, Ted Yu wrote: > I am interested in hearing about user experience with MOB feature as well= . > > In my opinion, this feature is a nice addition to branch-1. > > On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 1:45 PM, Andrew Purtell > wrote: > > > +user@ > > > > Is there anyone using the MOB feature in trunk for anything who can > comment > > on how well it's been working out? Intel folks maybe? > > > > On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 7:46 AM, Sean Busbey wrote: > > > > > The last time MOB on branch-1 came up, folks were concerned that it > > > wasn't stable enough in master yet. Is that still the case? > > > > > > Can we get a [DISCUSS] flagged thread to see what, if anything, folks > > > would like to see gate inclusion in branch-1? > > > > > > On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 7:31 PM, Jonathan Hsieh > > wrote: > > > > +1 to 1.2 being feature complete corrently. There has already been= a > > > > release candidate and folks are burning down the blockers currently > to > > > prep > > > > for the next RC. > > > > > > > > I like the idea of mob and sparkonhbase for 1.3. I'm more > comfortable > > > with > > > > sparkonhbase -- it is a new module and thus not as invasive. > > > > > > > > Jon. > > > > > > > > On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 4:55 PM, Andrew Purtell < > > > andrew.purtell@gmail.com> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > >> Pretty sure Sean expressed 1.2 is feature complete and I'd support > > that. > > > >> Can we wait for 1.3 for MOB ? Can look at Spark connector then too= . > > > >> > > > >> > On Jan 19, 2016, at 4:52 PM, Ted Yu wrote: > > > >> > > > > >> > Looks like 1.2.0 RC is in near future. > > > >> > > > > >> > I wonder if it is time to revive this thread (due to customer > > > interest). > > > >> > > > > >> > As far as I can tell, the Mob related tests have been passing in > the > > > >> recent > > > >> > past. > > > >> > > > > >> > Thanks > > > >> > > > > >> >> On Wed, Oct 28, 2015 at 2:07 PM, Andrew Purtell < > > apurtell@apache.org > > > > > > > >> wrote: > > > >> >> > > > >> >> I haven't heard an user answer in the affirmative to wanting it= . > > > >> >> > > > >> >> I'll volunteer to RM 1.3, whenever we need it. Premature to hav= e > > that > > > >> >> discussion without 1.2 even out the door yet, though. > > > >> >> > > > >> >> > > > >> >> > > > >> >> On Wed, Oct 28, 2015 at 1:01 PM, Stephen Jiang < > > > syuanjiangdev@gmail.com > > > >> > > > > >> >> wrote: > > > >> >> > > > >> >>> Actually, it is actively changing in master branch on MOB > feature > > > made > > > >> me > > > >> >>> think about: if we ever want to port MOB feature to branch-1, > now > > > is a > > > >> >> good > > > >> >>> time. We can commit changes in both branches; otherwise, we > > > probably > > > >> >> would > > > >> >>> miss some commits when we port MOB to branch-1 in a late time. > > > >> >>> > > > >> >>> I am more thinking about 1.3 release (certainly not 1.2), whic= h > we > > > >> still > > > >> >>> have some time to stabilize and allow interesting party to pla= y > > with > > > >> the > > > >> >>> feature and give feedback. > > > >> >>> > > > >> >>> Thanks > > > >> >>> Stephen > > > >> >>> > > > >> >>> PS. given the features we discussed in 2.0.0 in the last > community > > > >> >> meeting, > > > >> >>> I think it would not release earlier than 1.3 :-), unless we > > > >> >> intentionally > > > >> >>> not find a release manager for 1.3. > > > >> >>> > > > >> >>> > > > >> >>> > > > >> >>> > > > >> >>>> On Wed, Oct 28, 2015 at 9:09 AM, Sean Busbey < > > busbey@cloudera.com> > > > >> >>> wrote: > > > >> >>> > > > >> >>>> It's practically November. Matteo, are you up for a thread on > > > target > > > >> >>>> dates for 2.0.0 to start RCs? > > > >> >>>> > > > >> >>>> > > > >> >>>> On Wed, Oct 28, 2015 at 11:02 AM, Elliott Clark < > > eclark@apache.org > > > > > > > >> >>> wrote: > > > >> >>>>> I feel the same lets keep branch-1 stable, and work towards = a > > > faster > > > >> >>>> 2.0.0. > > > >> >>>>> > > > >> >>>>>> On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 4:52 PM, Stack > > wrote: > > > >> >>>>>> > > > >> >>>>>> IMO, MOB is still not settled in Master. It has a bunch of > > flakey > > > >> >>> tests > > > >> >>>>>> that are getting fixed by Jingcheng or I've disabled them > till > > > >> >> someone > > > >> >>>> has > > > >> >>>>>> time to look at them. There is also a load of duplicated co= de > > > that > > > >> >> is > > > >> >>>> being > > > >> >>>>>> cleaned up (Matteo). > > > >> >>>>>> > > > >> >>>>>> Its not ready to go back to branch-1 IMO. > > > >> >>>>>> > > > >> >>>>>> Are there users who'd like it backported? > > > >> >>>>>> St.Ack > > > >> >>>>>> > > > >> >>>>>> > > > >> >>>>>> On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 10:55 AM, Stephen Jiang < > > > >> >>>> syuanjiangdev@gmail.com> > > > >> >>>>>> wrote: > > > >> >>>>>> > > > >> >>>>>>> Hello, guys, the MOB is in master branch. I saw bug fixes > > > >> >> happening > > > >> >>>> in > > > >> >>>>>>> master branch. > > > >> >>>>>>> > > > >> >>>>>>> I just wonder whether there is a plan to put MOB in > > branch-1. I > > > >> >> am > > > >> >>>>>> afraid > > > >> >>>>>>> if we don't do it now, it would be harder in the future to > > back > > > >> >> port > > > >> >>>> if > > > >> >>>>>> we > > > >> >>>>>>> decide to do it in a late time. > > > >> >>>>>>> > > > >> >>>>>>> Thanks > > > >> >>>>>>> Stephen > > > >> >>>>>>> > > > >> >>>>>>> On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 1:15 PM, Andrew Purtell < > > > >> >>> apurtell@apache.org> > > > >> >>>>>>> wrote: > > > >> >>>>>>> > > > >> >>>>>>>> Thanks Jon. > > > >> >>>>>>>> > > > >> >>>>>>>> When I'm back in the office I'll check out master and hav= e > a > > > >> >> look > > > >> >>>> into > > > >> >>>>>>> any > > > >> >>>>>>>> locally repeatable test failures. Anyway in my opinion at > > this > > > >> >>>> point it > > > >> >>>>>>>> would make the most sense for us to keep the MOB changes = in > > on > > > >> >>>> master > > > >> >>>>>> and > > > >> >>>>>>>> deal with any fallout in follow on issues. I think all wh= o > > > voted > > > >> >>> +1 > > > >> >>>> for > > > >> >>>>>>>> this change were aware that large changes like this can > have > > a > > > >> >>>>>>> temporarily > > > >> >>>>>>>> destabilizing effect. As long as the MOB devs are around = to > > > help > > > >> >>>> clean > > > >> >>>>>>> up, > > > >> >>>>>>>> we should be good! > > > >> >>>>>>>> > > > >> >>>>>>>> > > > >> >>>>>>>> On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 8:09 PM, Jonathan Hsieh < > > > >> >> jon@cloudera.com > > > >> >>>> > > > >> >>>>>>> wrote: > > > >> >>>>>>>> > > > >> >>>>>>>>> I had two clean full builds/unit test on my internal set= up > > and > > > >> >>> the > > > >> >>>>>>> latest > > > >> >>>>>>>>> build went back to ~4325 total tests and failures on > > Procedure > > > >> >>>> relate > > > >> >>>>>>>> tests > > > >> >>>>>>>>> cases. > > > >> >>>>>>>>> > > > >> >>>>>>>>> I don't think mob is responsible for these failures. > > > >> >>>>>>>>> > > > >> >>>>>>>>> Jon. > > > >> >>>>>>>>> > > > >> >>>>>>>>> On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 4:32 PM, Jonathan Hsieh < > > > >> >>> jon@cloudera.com > > > >> >>>>> > > > >> >>>>>>>> wrote: > > > >> >>>>>>>>> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>> Although the the precommit buiid passed, and the > > compilation > > > >> >>> and > > > >> >>>>>> mob > > > >> >>>>>>>>>> testing I ran after before the merge was commited passe= d, > > It > > > >> >>>> looks > > > >> >>>>>>> like > > > >> >>>>>>>>>> the first full build after the merge [1] failed. It > looked > > > >> >>> like > > > >> >>>>>>>>>> something hung along the way, and that most of the > previous > > > >> >>>> builds > > > >> >>>>>>> had > > > >> >>>>>>>>>> failed for various reasons. :( > > > >> >>>>>>>>>> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>> I kicked it off again have it do another try. If it is > mob > > > >> >>>> related > > > >> >>>>>>>> we'll > > > >> >>>>>>>>>> take hunt it down and take care of it. > > > >> >>>>>>>>>> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>> Jon. > > > >> >>>>>>>>>> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>> [1] https://builds.apache.org/job/HBase-TRUNK/6672/ > > > >> >>>>>>>>>> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 1:16 PM, Jonathan Hsieh < > > > >> >>>> jon@cloudera.com> > > > >> >>>>>>>>> wrote: > > > >> >>>>>>>>>> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> I've merged the code in to master. Thanks for all the > > hard > > > >> >>>> work > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> Jingcheng and thanks to all who have been involved wit= h > > > >> >>>> reviews, > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> discussion, and voting! > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> Jon > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 12:45 AM, Jingcheng Du < > > > >> >>>>>>>> jingcheng.du@intel.com> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> wrote: > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> Hi all, > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> The vote passes with 8 +1s and no -1. Thanks all for > > > >> >>> guiding, > > > >> >>>>>>> helping > > > >> >>>>>>>>> and > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> voting! > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> We will work on the merge activities and will let guy= s > > > >> >> know > > > >> >>>> about > > > >> >>>>>>> the > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> detailed plan for merge time. > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> And thanks Jon for helping merge this branch to trunk= ! > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> Regards, > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> Jingcheng > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> -- > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> View this message in context: > > > >> >> > > > >> > > > > > > http://apache-hbase.679495.n3.nabble.com/RESULT-VOTE-Merge-branch-hbase-1= 1339-HBase-MOB-to-trunk-tp4073446.html > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> Sent from the HBase Developer mailing list archive at > > > >> >>>> Nabble.com. > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> -- > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> // Jonathan Hsieh (shay) > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> // HBase Tech Lead, Software Engineer, Cloudera > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> // jon@cloudera.com // @jmhsieh > > > >> >>>>>>>>>> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>> -- > > > >> >>>>>>>>>> // Jonathan Hsieh (shay) > > > >> >>>>>>>>>> // HBase Tech Lead, Software Engineer, Cloudera > > > >> >>>>>>>>>> // jon@cloudera.com // @jmhsieh > > > >> >>>>>>>>> > > > >> >>>>>>>>> > > > >> >>>>>>>>> > > > >> >>>>>>>>> -- > > > >> >>>>>>>>> // Jonathan Hsieh (shay) > > > >> >>>>>>>>> // HBase Tech Lead, Software Engineer, Cloudera > > > >> >>>>>>>>> // jon@cloudera.com // @jmhsieh > > > >> >>>>>>>> > > > >> >>>>>>>> > > > >> >>>>>>>> > > > >> >>>>>>>> -- > > > >> >>>>>>>> Best regards, > > > >> >>>>>>>> > > > >> >>>>>>>> - Andy > > > >> >>>>>>>> > > > >> >>>>>>>> Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting > back. > > - > > > >> >>> Piet > > > >> >>>>>> Hein > > > >> >>>>>>>> (via Tom White) > > > >> >>>> > > > >> >>>> > > > >> >>>> > > > >> >>>> -- > > > >> >>>> Sean > > > >> >> > > > >> >> > > > >> >> > > > >> >> -- > > > >> >> 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 > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Best regards, > > > > - Andy > > > > Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet Hei= n > > (via Tom White) > > > --=20 Best regards, - Andy Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet Hein (via Tom White) --001a11418d1e80c945052cb2211b--