hbase-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Andrew Purtell <apurt...@apache.org>
Subject Re: MOB in branch-1? (Re: [RESULT][VOTE] Merge branch hbase-11339 HBase MOB to trunk)
Date Fri, 26 Feb 2016 20:27:01 GMT
​I 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. ​

On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 10:11 AM, Ted Yu <yuzhihong@gmail.com> 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 <apurtell@apache.org>
> 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 <busbey@apache.org> 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 <jon@cloudera.com>
> > 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 <yuzhihong@gmail.com>
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 have
> > 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),
which
> we
> > > >> still
> > > >> >>> have some time to stabilize and allow interesting party
to play
> > 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 <stack@duboce.net>
> > 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 code
> > > 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 have
> 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 who
> > > 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 setup
> > 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 passed,
> > 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 with
> > > >> >>>> 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 guys
> > > >> >> 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-11339-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 Hein
> > (via Tom White)
> >
>



-- 
Best regards,

   - Andy

Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet Hein
(via Tom White)

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