hbase-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ted Yu <yuzhih...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Branch for 1.3
Date Mon, 21 Mar 2016 10:32:44 GMT
For Spark connector, we should start a separate discussion thread about
backporting to branch-1.

Zhan has a bug fix coming this week which deals with how negative numbers
are handled in comparison.

FYI

On Mon, Mar 21, 2016 at 1:35 AM, Mikhail Antonov <olorinbant@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Hi folks,
>
> bringing this topic up again. I'm planning to start spinning 1.3 builds and
> see if/where they break in a week or two, and (depending on how it does)
> start preparing RCs in a month or maybe two. So, let's see where we are.
>
> Big items first. There were long debates around three big items - MOBs,
> Spark connector and RS groups, whether we should have them or not.
>
>  - MOBs
> I believe we decided that they aren't going to go in branch-1, and hence
> not in branch-1.3 for sure. We might get back to that debate and
> re-consider MOBs for branch-1 if 2.0 is delayed, but almost certainly they
> won't make it in 1.3 timeframe anyway as I feel.
>
> - Spark connector - HBASE-14160 it looks like it has 3 subtasks open, one
> of which is big one (HBASE-14375) - define public API for Spark
> integration. From the Jira looks like active work is happening on other
> subtasks, but not on this one. So how's public API going? How stable it is?
> Who would want to have Spark in 1.3 and willing to help with this? OTOH -
> who has objections about back-porting it? Has anyone been using it in some
> real environment?
>
>  - RS groups - there was recently a thread about them, I'd like to bring it
> up again and get to some conclusion.
>
> Other features which we had in flight a month ago -
>
>  - HBASE-15181 - date based tiered compactions has landed
>  - HBASE-11290 - unlock RegionStates. I'm afraid the codebase has moved
> forward quite a bit since the benchmark was run on this change :( - Francis
> - are you using it now? If we could have some benchmarks on the latest
> rebase that I think would be great.
>
>
>  - HBASE-13557 - special handling for system tables WALs - should we still
> keep it targeted for 1.3?
>  - HBASE-13017 - keep table state in meta, this one doesn't look like it's
> going to make it in
>
> As a new item on my list - I'm looking forward to see more of HBASE-15492
> (memory optimizations) subtasks to go in branch-1.
>
> Thanks!
> Mikhail
>
> On Sun, Feb 28, 2016 at 10:53 AM, Andrew Purtell <andrew.purtell@gmail.com
> >
> wrote:
>
> > I'm starting a push at work to get us up on 1.2. Assuming that happens
> > later this year I think that will be the end of my close attention to
> 0.98.
> >
> > > On Feb 26, 2016, at 1:54 PM, Nick Dimiduk <ndimiduk@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 12:23 PM, Andrew Purtell <apurtell@apache.org>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > >> In the meantime those of us running HBase in production would benefit
> > from
> > >> fairly frequent minor releases.
> > >
> > > +1. Having to look back to 0.98 to get some new feature is problematic.
> > >
> > >> On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 9:50 AM, Elliott Clark <eclark@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> I disagree. We have agreed that 2.0 will have a new assignement
> > manager.
> > >>> There's a lot of work that has been done on getting that in, so far
> > there
> > >>> are no benefits to the end user from all that work. We should stick
> > with
> > >>> the plan and release 2.0 when it's ready.
> > >>>
> > >>> On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 9:39 AM, Stephen Jiang <
> > syuanjiangdev@gmail.com>
> > >>> wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>>> Thanks for Mikhail for taking the 1.3 RM role.  Looks like we have
a
> > >> lot
> > >>> of
> > >>>> new things in 1.3 release.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Based on the experience of 1.1 and 1.2 release, it takes a lot
of
> > >> efforts
> > >>>> to get a stable minor release out.  From this, I have my own 2-cents
> > on
> > >>> 1.4
> > >>>> release.  The plan is to have 2.0 release during summer time of
this
> > >> year
> > >>>> (yeah, *this year).  * Given the limited time and resource,  after
> 1.3
> > >>>> release, instead of spending effort on 1.4 release, the community
> > >> should
> > >>>> focus on stabilizing master (or branch-2, not exist as of now)
> branch
> > >> and
> > >>>> make 2.0 release a priority.  2.0 release would bring more values
to
> > >>>> customer  & move towards maturity of HBASE product.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Thanks
> > >>>> Stephen
> > >>>>
> > >>>> On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 1:49 AM, Mikhail Antonov <
> > olorinbant@gmail.com
> > >>>
> > >>>> wrote:
> > >>>>
> > >>>>> Created an umbrella jira for 1.3 release - HBASE-15341
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> So it looks like we may have 1.4 release before 2.0 is out?
I tried
> > >> to
> > >>>> add
> > >>>>> 1.4 version in jira so we can keep it in branch-1 poms but
I
> > >> couldn't -
> > >>>>> looks like I don't have permissions?
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> -Mikhail
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 3:52 PM, Andrew Purtell <
> apurtell@apache.org
> > >>>
> > >>>>> wrote:
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>> The guy we had looking at streaming replication moved on
and
> > >> there's
> > >>> no
> > >>>>>> immediate plans to take on the work, FWIW
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 3:33 PM, Matteo Bertozzi <
> > >>>>> theo.bertozzi@gmail.com>
> > >>>>>> wrote:
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> I was shooting for summer for hbase 2.0, the main problem
is that
> > >>>> there
> > >>>>>> is
> > >>>>>>> still no code for the new AM or for fs changes, which
are the two
> > >>>> that
> > >>>>>> may
> > >>>>>>> impact compatibility (working slowly on that). Streaming
> > >>> replication
> > >>>>> and
> > >>>>>>> others seems compatible enough but no code there too.
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> Matteo
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 3:29 PM, Mikhail Antonov <
> > >>>> olorinbant@gmail.com
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> Agreed. I just meant - readiness of 2.0 is something
affecting
> > >>>>>> decisions
> > >>>>>>> on
> > >>>>>>>> whether or not to backport mobs to branch-1 (which
is itself
> > >>>> separate
> > >>>>>>>> thread).
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> -Mikhail
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 3:27 PM, Sean Busbey <
> > >>> busbey@cloudera.com>
> > >>>>>>> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 5:21 PM, Mikhail Antonov
<
> > >>>>>> olorinbant@gmail.com
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> - "Shouldn't we rather try to get 2.0 release
out and have
> > >>>> mobs
> > >>>>>>>> there".
> > >>>>>>>>> -
> > >>>>>>>>>> So how far do we feel 2.0 release is?
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> 2.0 readiness probably deserves its own [DISCUSS]
thread, but
> > >>>> we're
> > >>>>>> now
> > >>>>>>>>> past a year since the HBase 1.0.0 release,
so I hope it's
> > >> soon.
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> --
> > >>>>>>>>> Sean
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> --
> > >>>>>>>> Thanks,
> > >>>>>>>> Michael Antonov
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> --
> > >>>>>> Best regards,
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>   - Andy
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting
back. -
> Piet
> > >>>> Hein
> > >>>>>> (via Tom White)
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> --
> > >>>>> Thanks,
> > >>>>> Michael Antonov
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> --
> > >> Best regards,
> > >>
> > >>   - Andy
> > >>
> > >> Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet
> Hein
> > >> (via Tom White)
> > >>
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Thanks,
> Michael Antonov
>

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