hbase-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Enis Söztutar <e...@apache.org>
Subject Re: [DISCUSSION] Merge Backup / Restore - Branch HBASE-7912
Date Mon, 10 Oct 2016 22:16:14 GMT
> A vote thread can be started if there is no further comment.
Agreed.

Devs, please raise any remaining concerns, if any, now. Otherwise, let's
start the vote in 2 days.

Enis

On Mon, Oct 10, 2016 at 2:46 PM, Ted Yu <yuzhihong@gmail.com> wrote:

> bq. Does the branch ready for merge
>
> Yes - see the mega patch.
>
> We can discuss the actual procedure of merging if the community gives green
> light to merging.
>
> A vote thread can be started if there is no further comment.
>
> On Mon, Oct 10, 2016 at 2:42 PM, Enis Söztutar <enis@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > Great work.
> >
> > So what are the next steps? It seems from the discussion that all
> > outstanding requests have been addressed. Does the branch ready for merge
> > or, you have to rebase the branch as well?
> >
> > Time to start a merge vote?
> > Enis
> >
> > On Mon, Oct 10, 2016 at 1:44 PM, Vladimir Rodionov <
> vladrodionov@gmail.com
> > >
> > wrote:
> >
> > > >> mapreduce dependency has been moved to client side - no mapreduce
> job
> > >
> > > 1. We have no code in the client module anymore, due to dependency on
> > > internal server API (HFile and WAL access).
> > > 2. Backup/ restore are client - driven operations, but all the code
> > resides
> > > in the server module
> > > 3. No MR in Master, no procedure - driven execution.
> > > 4. Old good MR from command-line.
> > > 5. Security was simplified and now only super-user is allowed to run
> > > backup/restores.
> > > 6. HBase Backup API was gone due to 1. Now only command-line access to
> > > backup tools.
> > >
> > > These consequences of refactoring has been discussed in HBASE-16727.
> > >
> > > -Vlad
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Mon, Oct 10, 2016 at 1:31 PM, Ted Yu <yuzhihong@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Reviving this thread.
> > > >
> > > > The following has taken place:
> > > >
> > > > mapreduce dependency has been moved to client side - no mapreduce job
> > > > launched from master or region server.
> > > > document patch (HBASE-16574) has been integrated.
> > > > Updated mega patch has been attached to HBASE-14123: this covers the
> > > > refactor in #1 above and the protobuf 3 merge.
> > > >
> > > > If community has more feedback on the merge proposal, I would love to
> > > hear
> > > > it.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 10:31 AM, Sean Busbey <busbey@cloudera.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > I'd like to see the docs proposed on HBASE-16574 integrated into
> our
> > > > > project's documentation prior to merge.
> > > > >
> > > > > On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 9:02 AM, Ted Yu <yuzhihong@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > > > > > This feature can be marked experimental due to some limitations
> > such
> > > as
> > > > > > security.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Your previous round of comments have been addressed.
> > > > > > Command line tool has gone through:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > HBASE-16620 Fix backup command-line tool usability issues
> > > > > > HBASE-16655 hbase backup describe with incorrect backup id
> results
> > in
> > > > NPE
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The updated doc has been attached to HBASE-16574.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Cheers
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 8:53 AM, Stack <stack@duboce.net> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >> On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 7:43 AM, Ted Yu <yuzhihong@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> > Are there more (review) comments ?
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> Are outstanding comments addressed?
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> I don't see answer to my 'is this experimental/will it be marked
> > > > > >> experimental' question.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> I ran into some issues trying to use the feature and suggested
> > that
> > > a
> > > > > >> feature likes this needs polish else it'll just rot, unused. Has
> > > > polish
> > > > > >> been applied? All ready for another 'user' test? Suggest that
> you
> > > > update
> > > > > >> here going forward for the benefit of those trying to follow
> along
> > > and
> > > > > who
> > > > > >> are not watching JIRA change fly-by.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> It looks like doc got a revision -- I have to check -- to take
> on
> > > > > >> suggestion made above but again, suggest, that this thread gets
> > > > updated.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> Thanks,
> > > > > >> St.Ack
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> > Thanks
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 10:02 AM, Devaraj Das <
> > > ddas@hortonworks.com
> > > > >
> > > > > >> > wrote:
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > > Just reviving this thread. Thanks Sean, Stack, Dima, and
> > others
> > > > for
> > > > > the
> > > > > >> > > thorough reviews and testing. Thanks Ted and Vlad for taking
> > > care
> > > > of
> > > > > >> the
> > > > > >> > > feedback. Are we all good to do the merge now? Rather do
> > sooner
> > > > than
> > > > > >> > later.
> > > > > >> > > ________________________________________
> > > > > >> > > From: saint.ack@gmail.com <saint.ack@gmail.com> on behalf
> of
> > > > Stack
> > > > > <
> > > > > >> > > stack@duboce.net>
> > > > > >> > > Sent: Monday, September 12, 2016 1:18 PM
> > > > > >> > > To: HBase Dev List
> > > > > >> > > Subject: Re: [DISCUSSION] Merge Backup / Restore - Branch
> > > > HBASE-7912
> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > >> > > On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 12:19 PM, Ted Yu <
> yuzhihong@gmail.com
> > >
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > >> > > > Mega patch (rev 18) is on HBASE-14123.
> > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > >> > > > Please comment on HBASE-14123 on how you want to review.
> > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > >> > > Yeah. That was my lost tab. Last rb was 6 months ago.
> Suggest
> > > > > updating
> > > > > >> > it.
> > > > > >> > > RB is pretty good for review. Patch is only 1.5M so should
> be
> > > > fine.
> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > >> > > St.Ack
> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > >> > > > Thanks
> > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > >> > > > On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 12:15 PM, Stack <stack@duboce.net
> >
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > On review of the 'patch', do I just compare the branch
> to
> > > > > master or
> > > > > >> > is
> > > > > >> > > > > there a megapatch posted somewhere (I think I saw one
> but
> > it
> > > > > seemed
> > > > > >> > > stale
> > > > > >> > > > > and then I 'lost' the tab). Sorry for dumb question.
> > > > > >> > > > > St.Ack
> > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 12:01 PM, Stack <
> stack@duboce.net
> > >
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > Late to the game. A few comments after rereading this
> > > thread
> > > > > as a
> > > > > >> > > > 'user'.
> > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > + Before merge, a user-facing feature like this should
> > > work
> > > > > (If
> > > > > >> > this
> > > > > >> > > is
> > > > > >> > > > > "higher-bar
> > > > > >> > > > > > for new features", bring it on -- smile).
> > > > > >> > > > > > + As a user, I tried the branch with tools after
> > reviewing
> > > > the
> > > > > >> > > > > just-posted
> > > > > >> > > > > > doc. I had an 'interesting' experience (left comments
> up
> > > on
> > > > > >> > issue). I
> > > > > >> > > > > think
> > > > > >> > > > > > the tooling/doc. important to get right. If it breaks
> > > easily
> > > > > or
> > > > > >> is
> > > > > >> > > > > > inconsistent (or lacks 'polish'), operators will judge
> > the
> > > > > whole
> > > > > >> > > > > > backup/restore tooling chain as not trustworthy and
> > > abandon
> > > > > it.
> > > > > >> > Lets
> > > > > >> > > > not
> > > > > >> > > > > > have this happen to this feature.
> > > > > >> > > > > > + Matteo's suggestion (with a helpful starter list)
> that
> > > > there
> > > > > >> > needs
> > > > > >> > > to
> > > > > >> > > > > be
> > > > > >> > > > > > explicit qualification on what is actually being
> > delivered
> > > > --
> > > > > >> > > > including a
> > > > > >> > > > > > listing of limitations (some look serious such as data
> > > bleed
> > > > > from
> > > > > >> > > other
> > > > > >> > > > > > regions in WALs, but maybe I don't care for my use
> > > case...)
> > > > --
> > > > > >> > needs
> > > > > >> > > to
> > > > > >> > > > > > accompany the merge. Lets fold them into the user doc.
> > in
> > > > the
> > > > > >> > > technical
> > > > > >> > > > > > overview area as suggested so user expectations are
> > > properly
> > > > > >> > managed
> > > > > >> > > > > > (otherwise, they expect the world and will just give
> up
> > > when
> > > > > we
> > > > > >> > fall
> > > > > >> > > > > > short). Vladimir did a list of what is in each of the
> > > phases
> > > > > >> above
> > > > > >> > > > which
> > > > > >> > > > > > would serve as a good start.
> > > > > >> > > > > > + Is this feature 'experimental' (Matteo asks above).
> > I'd
> > > > > prefer
> > > > > >> it
> > > > > >> > > is
> > > > > >> > > > > > not. If it is, it should be labelled all over that it
> is
> > > > so. I
> > > > > >> see
> > > > > >> > > > > current
> > > > > >> > > > > > state called out as a '... technical preview feature'.
> > > Does
> > > > > this
> > > > > >> > mean
> > > > > >> > > > > > not-for-users?
> > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > St.Ack
> > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 8:03 AM, Ted Yu <
> > > > yuzhihong@gmail.com>
> > > > > >> > wrote:
> > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > >> Sean:
> > > > > >> > > > > >> Do you have more comments ?
> > > > > >> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> > > > > >> Cheers
> > > > > >> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> > > > > >> On Fri, Sep 9, 2016 at 1:42 PM, Vladimir Rodionov <
> > > > > >> > > > > vladrodionov@gmail.com
> > > > > >> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > > > > >> wrote:
> > > > > >> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > Sean,
> > > > > >> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > Backup/Restore can fail due to various reasons:
> > network
> > > > > outage
> > > > > >> > > > > (cluster
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > wide), various time-outs in HBase and HDFS layer,
> M/R
> > > > > failure
> > > > > >> > due
> > > > > >> > > to
> > > > > >> > > > > >> "HDFS
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > exceeded quota", user error (manual deletion of
> data)
> > > and
> > > > > so
> > > > > >> on
> > > > > >> > so
> > > > > >> > > > on.
> > > > > >> > > > > >> That
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > is impossible to enumerate all possible types of
> > > failures
> > > > > in a
> > > > > >> > > > > >> distributed
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > system - that is not our goal/task.
> > > > > >> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > We focus completely on backup system table
> > consistency
> > > > in a
> > > > > >> > > presence
> > > > > >> > > > > of
> > > > > >> > > > > >> any
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > type of failure. That is what I call "tolerance to
> > > > > failures".
> > > > > >> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > On a failure:
> > > > > >> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > BACKUP. All backup system information (prior to
> > backup)
> > > > > will
> > > > > >> be
> > > > > >> > > > > restored
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > and all temporary data, related to a failed
> session,
> > in
> > > > > HDFS
> > > > > >> > will
> > > > > >> > > be
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > deleted
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > RESTORE. We do not care about system data, because
> > > > restore
> > > > > >> does
> > > > > >> > > not
> > > > > >> > > > > >> change
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > it. Temporary data in HDFS will be cleaned up and
> > table
> > > > > will
> > > > > >> be
> > > > > >> > > in a
> > > > > >> > > > > >> state
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > back to where it was before operation started.
> > > > > >> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > This is what user should expect in case of a
> failure.
> > > > > >> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > -Vlad
> > > > > >> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > -Vlad
> > > > > >> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > On Fri, Sep 9, 2016 at 12:56 PM, Sean Busbey <
> > > > > >> busbey@apache.org
> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > >> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > Failing in a consistent way, with docs that
> explain
> > > the
> > > > > >> > various
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > expected failures would be sufficient.
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > On Fri, Sep 9, 2016 at 12:16 PM, Vladimir
> Rodionov
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > <vladrodionov@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > Do not worry Sean, doc is coming today as a
> > preview
> > > > and
> > > > > >> our
> > > > > >> > > > writer
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > Frank
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > will be working on a putting  it into Apache
> > repo.
> > > > > >> Timeline
> > > > > >> > > > > depends
> > > > > >> > > > > >> on
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > Franks schedule but I hope we will get it
> rather
> > > > sooner
> > > > > >> than
> > > > > >> > > > > later.
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > As for failure testing, we are focusing only
> on a
> > > > > >> consistent
> > > > > >> > > > state
> > > > > >> > > > > >> of
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > backup system data in a presence of any type of
> > > > > failures,
> > > > > >> We
> > > > > >> > > are
> > > > > >> > > > > not
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > going
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > to implement  anything more "fancy", than that.
> > We
> > > > > allow
> > > > > >> > both:
> > > > > >> > > > > >> backup
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > and
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > restore to fail. What we do not allow is to
> have
> > > > system
> > > > > >> data
> > > > > >> > > > > >> corrupted.
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > Will it suffice for you? Do you have any other
> > > > > concerns,
> > > > > >> you
> > > > > >> > > > want
> > > > > >> > > > > >> us to
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > address?
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > -Vlad
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > On Fri, Sep 9, 2016 at 10:56 AM, Sean Busbey <
> > > > > >> > > busbey@apache.org
> > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > wrote:
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> "docs will come to Apache soon" does not
> address
> > > my
> > > > > >> concern
> > > > > >> > > > > around
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > docs
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > at
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> all, unless said docs have already made it
> into
> > > the
> > > > > >> project
> > > > > >> > > > > repo. I
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > don't
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> want third party resources for using a major
> and
> > > > > >> important
> > > > > >> > > > > feature
> > > > > >> > > > > >> of
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > the
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> project, I want us to provide end users with
> > what
> > > > they
> > > > > >> need
> > > > > >> > > to
> > > > > >> > > > > get
> > > > > >> > > > > >> the
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > job
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> done.
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >>
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> I see some calls for patience on the failure
> > > > testing,
> > > > > but
> > > > > >> > the
> > > > > >> > > > > >> appeal
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > to
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > us
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> having done a bad job of requiring proper
> tests
> > of
> > > > > >> previous
> > > > > >> > > > > >> features
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > just
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> makes me more concerned about not getting them
> > > > here. I
> > > > > >> > don't
> > > > > >> > > > want
> > > > > >> > > > > >> to
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > set
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> yet another bad example that will then be
> > pointed
> > > to
> > > > > in
> > > > > >> the
> > > > > >> > > > > future.
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >>
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> On Sep 8, 2016 10:50, "Ted Yu" <
> > > yuzhihong@gmail.com
> > > > >
> > > > > >> > wrote:
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >>
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > Is there any concern which is not addressed
> ?
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> >
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > Do we need another Vote thread ?
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> >
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > Thanks
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> >
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > On Thu, Sep 8, 2016 at 9:21 AM, Andrew
> > Purtell <
> > > > > >> > > > > >> apurtell@apache.org
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > wrote:
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> >
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > Vlad,
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > >
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > I apologize for using the term
> 'half-baked'
> > > in a
> > > > > way
> > > > > >> > that
> > > > > >> > > > > could
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > seem a
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > description of HBASE-7912. I meant that
> as a
> > > > > general
> > > > > >> > > > > >> hypothetical.
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > >
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > On Wed, Sep 7, 2016 at 9:36 AM, Vladimir
> > > > Rodionov
> > > > > <
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > vladrodionov@gmail.com>
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > wrote:
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > >
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > >> I'm not sure that "There is already
> > lots
> > > of
> > > > > >> > > half-baked
> > > > > >> > > > > >> code
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > in
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > the
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > branch,
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > so what's the harm in adding more?"
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > I meant - not production - ready yet.
> This
> > > is
> > > > > 2.0
> > > > > >> > > > > development
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > branch
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > and,
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > hence many features are in works,
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > not being tested well etc. I do not
> > consider
> > > > > backup
> > > > > >> > as
> > > > > >> > > > half
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > baked
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > feature -
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > it has passed our internal QA and has
> very
> > > > good
> > > > > >> doc,
> > > > > >> > > > which
> > > > > >> > > > > we
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > will
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > provide
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > to Apache shortly.
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > -Vlad
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > On Wed, Sep 7, 2016 at 9:13 AM, Andrew
> > > > Purtell <
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > apurtell@apache.org>
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > wrote:
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > We shouldn't admit half baked changes
> > that
> > > > > won't
> > > > > >> be
> > > > > >> > > > > >> finished.
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> However
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > in
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > this case the crew working on this
> > feature
> > > > are
> > > > > >> long
> > > > > >> > > > > timers
> > > > > >> > > > > >> and
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > less
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > likely
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > than just about anyone to leave
> > something
> > > > in a
> > > > > >> half
> > > > > >> > > > baked
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > state. Of
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > course
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > there is no guarantee how anything
> will
> > > turn
> > > > > out,
> > > > > >> > > but I
> > > > > >> > > > > am
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > willing
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> to
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > take
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > a little on faith if they feel their
> > best
> > > > path
> > > > > >> > > forward
> > > > > >> > > > > now
> > > > > >> > > > > >> is
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > to
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > merge
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > to
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > trunk. I only wish I had bandwidth to
> > have
> > > > > done
> > > > > >> > some
> > > > > >> > > > real
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > kicking
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> of
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > the
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > tires by now. Maybe this week.
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > (Yes, I'm using some of that time for
> > this
> > > > > email
> > > > > >> > :-)
> > > > > >> > > > but
> > > > > >> > > > > I
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > type
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > fast.)
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > That said, I would like to agitate for
> > > > making
> > > > > 2.0
> > > > > >> > > more
> > > > > >> > > > > real
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > and
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> spend
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > some
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > time on it now that I'm winding down
> > with
> > > > > 0.98. I
> > > > > >> > > think
> > > > > >> > > > > >> that
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > means
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > branching for 2.0 real soon now and
> even
> > > > > evicting
> > > > > >> > > > things
> > > > > >> > > > > >> from
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > 2.0
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > branch
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > that aren't finished or stable,
> leaving
> > > them
> > > > > only
> > > > > >> > > once
> > > > > >> > > > > >> again
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > in
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > the
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > master
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > branch. Or, maybe just evicting them.
> > > Let's
> > > > > take
> > > > > >> it
> > > > > >> > > > case
> > > > > >> > > > > by
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > case.
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > I think this feature can come in
> > > relatively
> > > > > >> safely.
> > > > > >> > > As
> > > > > >> > > > > >> added
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > insurance,
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > let's admit the possibility it could
> be
> > > > > reverted
> > > > > >> on
> > > > > >> > > the
> > > > > >> > > > > 2.0
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > branch
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> if
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > folks
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > working on stabilizing 2.0 decide to
> > evict
> > > > it
> > > > > >> > because
> > > > > >> > > > it
> > > > > >> > > > > is
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > unfinished
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > or
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > unstable, because that certainly can
> > > > happen. I
> > > > > >> > would
> > > > > >> > > > > >> expect if
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > talk
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > like
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > that starts, we'd get help finishing
> or
> > > > > >> stabilizing
> > > > > >> > > > > what's
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > under
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > discussion
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > for revert. Or, we'd have a revert.
> > Either
> > > > way
> > > > > >> the
> > > > > >> > > > > outcome
> > > > > >> > > > > >> is
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > acceptable.
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > On Wed, Sep 7, 2016 at 8:56 AM, Dima
> > > Spivak
> > > > <
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > dimaspivak@apache.org
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> >
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > wrote:
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > I'm not sure that "There is already
> > lots
> > > > of
> > > > > >> > > > half-baked
> > > > > >> > > > > >> code
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > in
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> the
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > branch,
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > so what's the harm in adding more?"
> > is a
> > > > > good
> > > > > >> > code
> > > > > >> > > > > commit
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > philosophy
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > for
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > a
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > fault-tolerant distributed data
> store.
> > > ;)
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > More seriously, a lack of test
> > coverage
> > > > for
> > > > > >> > > existing
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > features
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > shouldn't
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > be
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > used as justification for
> introducing
> > > new
> > > > > >> > features
> > > > > >> > > > with
> > > > > >> > > > > >> the
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > same
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > shortcomings. Ultimately, it's the
> end
> > > > user
> > > > > who
> > > > > >> > > will
> > > > > >> > > > > feel
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > the
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> pain,
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > so
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > shouldn't we do everything we can to
> > > > > mitigate
> > > > > >> > that?
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > -Dima
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > On Wed, Sep 7, 2016 at 8:46 AM,
> > Vladimir
> > > > > >> > Rodionov <
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > vladrodionov@gmail.com>
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > Sean,
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > * have docs
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > Agree. We have a doc and backup is
> > the
> > > > > most
> > > > > >> > > > > documented
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > feature
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > :),
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > we
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > will
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > release it shortly to Apache.
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > * have sunny-day correctness tests
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > Feature has  close to 60 test
> cases,
> > > > which
> > > > > >> run
> > > > > >> > > for
> > > > > >> > > > > >> approx
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > 30
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> min.
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > We
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > can
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > add more, if community do not mind
> > :)
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > * have
> > correctness-in-face-of-failure
> > > > > tests
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > Any examples of these tests in
> > > existing
> > > > > >> > features?
> > > > > >> > > > In
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > works,
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > we
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > have a
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > clear
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > understanding of what should be
> done
> > > by
> > > > > the
> > > > > >> > time
> > > > > >> > > of
> > > > > >> > > > > 2.0
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> release.
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > That is very close goal for us, to
> > > > verify
> > > > > IT
> > > > > >> > > monkey
> > > > > >> > > > > for
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> existing
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > code.
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > * don't rely on things outside of
> > > HBase
> > > > > for
> > > > > >> > > normal
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > operation
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > (okay
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > for
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > advanced operation)
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > We do not.
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > Enormous time has been spent
> already
> > > on
> > > > > the
> > > > > >> > > > > development
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > and
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > testing
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > the
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > feature, it has passed our
> internal
> > > > tests
> > > > > and
> > > > > >> > > many
> > > > > >> > > > > >> rounds
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > of
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> code
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > reviews
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > by HBase committers. We do not
> mind
> > if
> > > > > >> someone
> > > > > >> > > from
> > > > > >> > > > > >> HBase
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > community
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > (outside of HW) will review the
> > code,
> > > > but
> > > > > it
> > > > > >> > will
> > > > > >> > > > > >> probably
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> takes
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > forever
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > to
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > wait for volunteer?, the feature
> is
> > > > quite
> > > > > >> large
> > > > > >> > > > (1MB+
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> cumulative
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > patch)
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > 2.0 branch is full of half baked
> > > > features,
> > > > > >> most
> > > > > >> > > of
> > > > > >> > > > > them
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > are
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > in
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > active
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > development, therefore I am not
> > > > following
> > > > > you
> > > > > >> > > here,
> > > > > >> > > > > >> Sean?
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > Why
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > HBASE-7912
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > is
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > not good enough yet to be
> integrated
> > > > into
> > > > > 2.0
> > > > > >> > > > branch?
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > -Vlad
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > On Wed, Sep 7, 2016 at 8:23 AM,
> Sean
> > > > > Busbey <
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > busbey@apache.org
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> >
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > wrote:
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 10:36 PM,
> > > Josh
> > > > > >> Elser <
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > josh.elser@gmail.com>
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > So, the answer to Sean's
> > original
> > > > > >> question
> > > > > >> > is
> > > > > >> > > > "as
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > robust as
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > snapshots
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > presently are"? (independence
> of
> > > > > >> > > backup/restore
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > failure
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > tolerance
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > from
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > snapshot failure tolerance)
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > Is this just a question WRT
> > > context
> > > > of
> > > > > >> the
> > > > > >> > > > > change,
> > > > > >> > > > > >> or
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > is it
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > means
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > for a
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > veto
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > from you, Sean? Just trying to
> > > make
> > > > > sure
> > > > > >> > I'm
> > > > > >> > > > > >> following
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> along
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > adequately.
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > I'd say ATM I'm -0, bordering on
> > -1
> > > > but
> > > > > not
> > > > > >> > for
> > > > > >> > > > > >> reasons
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > I
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > can
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > articulate
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > well.
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > Here's an attempt.
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > We've been trying to move, as a
> > > > > community,
> > > > > >> > > > towards
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > minimizing
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > risk
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > to
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > downstream folks by getting
> > > "complete
> > > > > >> enough
> > > > > >> > > for
> > > > > >> > > > > use"
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > gates
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> in
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > place
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > before we introduce new
> features.
> > > This
> > > > > was
> > > > > >> > > > spurred
> > > > > >> > > > > >> by a
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > some
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > features
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > getting in half-baked and never
> > > making
> > > > > it
> > > > > >> to
> > > > > >> > > "can
> > > > > >> > > > > >> really
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > use"
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > status
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > (I'm thinking of distributed log
> > > > replay
> > > > > and
> > > > > >> > the
> > > > > >> > > > > >> zk-less
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > assignment
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > stuff, I don't recall if there
> was
> > > > > more).
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > The gates, generally, included
> > > things
> > > > > like:
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > * have docs
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > * have sunny-day correctness
> tests
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > * have
> > > correctness-in-face-of-failure
> > > > > tests
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > * don't rely on things outside
> of
> > > > HBase
> > > > > for
> > > > > >> > > > normal
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > operation
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > (okay
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > for
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > advanced operation)
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > As an example, we kept the MOB
> > work
> > > > off
> > > > > in
> > > > > >> a
> > > > > >> > > > branch
> > > > > >> > > > > >> and
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > out
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> of
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > master
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > until it could pass these
> > criteria.
> > > > The
> > > > > big
> > > > > >> > > > > exemption
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > we've
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> had
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > to
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > this was the hbase-spark
> > > integration,
> > > > > where
> > > > > >> > we
> > > > > >> > > > all
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > agreed
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > it
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > could
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > land in master because it was
> very
> > > > well
> > > > > >> > > isolated
> > > > > >> > > > > (the
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > slide
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > away
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > from
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > including docs as a first-class
> > part
> > > > of
> > > > > >> > > building
> > > > > >> > > > up
> > > > > >> > > > > >> that
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > integration
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > has led me to doubt the wisdom
> of
> > > this
> > > > > >> > > decision).
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > We've also been treating
> inclusion
> > > in
> > > > a
> > > > > >> > > "probably
> > > > > >> > > > > >> will
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > be
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > released
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > to
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > downstream" branches as a higher
> > > bar,
> > > > > >> > requiring
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > * don't moderately impact
> > > performance
> > > > > when
> > > > > >> > the
> > > > > >> > > > > >> feature
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > isn't
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> in
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > use
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > * don't severely impact
> > performance
> > > > when
> > > > > >> the
> > > > > >> > > > > feature
> > > > > >> > > > > >> is
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > in
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> use
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > * either default-to-on or show
> > > enough
> > > > > >> demand
> > > > > >> > to
> > > > > >> > > > > >> believe
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > a
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > non-trivial
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > number of folks will turn the
> > > feature
> > > > on
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > The above has kept MOB and
> > > hbase-spark
> > > > > >> > > > integration
> > > > > >> > > > > >> out
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > of
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > branch-1,
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > presumably while they've "gotten
> > > more
> > > > > >> stable"
> > > > > >> > > in
> > > > > >> > > > > >> master
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > from
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > the
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > odd
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > vendor inclusion.
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > Are we going to have a 2.0
> release
> > > > > before
> > > > > >> the
> > > > > >> > > end
> > > > > >> > > > > of
> > > > > >> > > > > >> the
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> year?
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > We're
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > coming up on 1.5 years since the
> > > > > release of
> > > > > >> > > > version
> > > > > >> > > > > >> 1.0;
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> seems
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > like
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > it's about time, though I
> haven't
> > > seen
> > > > > any
> > > > > >> > > > concrete
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > plans
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> this
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > year.
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > Presuming we are going to have
> one
> > > by
> > > > > the
> > > > > >> end
> > > > > >> > > of
> > > > > >> > > > > the
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > year, it
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > seems a
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > bit close to still be adding in
> > > > > "features
> > > > > >> > that
> > > > > >> > > > need
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > maturing"
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > on
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > the
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > branch.
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > The lack of a concrete plan for
> > 2.0
> > > > > keeps
> > > > > >> me
> > > > > >> > > from
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > considering
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > these
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > things blocker at the moment.
> But
> > I
> > > > know
> > > > > >> > first
> > > > > >> > > > hand
> > > > > >> > > > > >> how
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > much
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > trouble
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > folks have had with other
> features
> > > > that
> > > > > >> have
> > > > > >> > > gone
> > > > > >> > > > > >> into
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > downstream
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > facing releases without
> robustness
> > > > > checks
> > > > > >> > (i.e.
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > replication),
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > and
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > I'm
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > concerned about what we're
> setting
> > > up
> > > > if
> > > > > >> 2.0
> > > > > >> > > goes
> > > > > >> > > > > out
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > with
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> this
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > feature in its current state.
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > --
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > >    - Andy
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > Problems worthy of attack prove their
> > > worth
> > > > by
> > > > > >> > > hitting
> > > > > >> > > > > >> back. -
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > Piet
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > Hein
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > (via Tom White)
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > >
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > >
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > >
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > --
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > Best regards,
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > >
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > >    - Andy
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > >
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > Problems worthy of attack prove their
> worth
> > by
> > > > > >> hitting
> > > > > >> > > > back.
> > > > > >> > > > > -
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > Piet
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> Hein
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > (via Tom White)
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > >
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> >
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >>
> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > >> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >>
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > busbey
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

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