I posted a comment in the other thread about feature branch merges. My preference is to make sure the requirements we have for regular patches be applied to feature branch patch as well (3 +1s is the only exception). Also adding details about what functionality is missing (I posted a comment on HDFS-4949) and the changes that deferred that will be done post merge to trunk would be good.
It would be better to start the merge vote when the work is ready instead of trying to optimize 1 week by doing the required work for merging in parallel with the vote. If all the requirements for merging have been met, I am +1 on the merge, without the need for restarting the vote. On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 11:29 PM, Aaron T. Myers <a...@apache.org> wrote: > I don't necessarily disagree with the general questions about the > procedural issues of merge votes. Thanks for bringing that up in the other > thread you mentioned. To some extent it seems like much of this has been > based on custom, and if folks feel that more precisely defining the merge > vote process is warranted, then I think we should take that up over on that > thread. > > With regard to this particular merge vote, I've spoken with Chris offline > about his feelings on this. He said that he is not dead-set on restarting > the vote, though he suspects that others may be. It seems to me the > remaining unfinished asks (e.g. updating the design doc) can reasonably be > done either after this vote but before the merge to trunk proper, or could > even reasonably be done after merging to trunk. > > Given that, I'll lend my +1 to this merge. I've been reviewing the branch > pretty consistently since work started on it, and have personally > run/tested several builds of it along the way. I've also reviewed the > design thoroughly. The implementation, overall design, and API seem to me > plenty stable enough to be merged into trunk. I know that there remains a > handful of javac warnings in the branch that aren't in trunk, but I trust > those will be taken care of before the merge. > > If anyone out there does feel strongly that this merge vote should be > restarted, then please speak up soon. Again, we can restart the vote if > need be, but I honestly think we'll gain very little by doing so. > > Best, > Aaron > > > On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 5:45 AM, Chris Nauroth <cnaur...@hortonworks.com > >wrote: > > > Hi Andrew, > > > > I've come to the conclusion that I'm very confused about merge votes. > :-) > > It's not just about HDFS-4949. I'm confused about all merge votes. > > Rather than muddy the waters here, I've started a separate discussion on > > common-dev. > > > > I do agree with the general plan outlined here, and I will comment > directly > > on the HDFS-4949 jira with a binding +1 when I see that we've completed > > that plan. > > > > Chris Nauroth > > Hortonworks > > http://hortonworks.com/ > > > > > > > > On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 2:18 PM, Andrew Wang <andrew.w...@cloudera.com > > >wrote: > > > > > Hey Chris, > > > > > > Right now we're on track to have all of those things done by tomorrow. > > > Since the remaining issues are either not technical or do not involve > > major > > > changes, I was hoping we could +1 this merge vote in the spirit of "+1 > > > pending jenkins". We've gotten clean unit test runs on upstream Jenkins > > as > > > well, so the only fixups we should need for test-patch.sh are findbugs > > and > > > javac (which are normally pretty trivial to clean up). Of course, all > of > > > your listed prereqs and test-patch would be taken care of before > actually > > > merging to trunk. > > > > > > So, we can reset the vote if you feel strongly about this, but it seems > > > like the only real result will be delaying the merge by a week. > > > > > > Thanks, > > > Andrew > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 1:03 PM, Chris Nauroth < > cnaur...@hortonworks.com > > > >wrote: > > > > > > > I've received some feedback that we haven't handled this merge vote > the > > > > same as other comparable merge votes, and that the vote should be > reset > > > > because of this. > > > > > > > > The recent custom is that we only call for the merge vote after all > > > > pre-requisites have been satisfied. This would include committing to > > the > > > > feature branch all patches that the devs deem necessary before the > code > > > > lands in trunk, posting a test plan, posting an updated design doc in > > > case > > > > implementation choices diverged from the original design doc, and > > > getting a > > > > good test-patch run from Jenkins on the merge patch. This was the > > > process > > > > followed for other recent major features like HDFS-2802 (snapshots), > > > > HDFS-347 (short-circuit reads via sharing file descriptors), and > > > > HADOOP-8562 (Windows compatibility). In this thread, we've diverged > > from > > > > that process by calling for a vote on a branch that hasn't yet > > completed > > > > the pre-requisites and stating a plan for work to be done before the > > > merge. > > > > > > > > I still support this work, but can we please restart the vote after > the > > > > pre-requisites have landed in the branch? > > > > > > > > Chris Nauroth > > > > Hortonworks > > > > http://hortonworks.com/ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 1:37 PM, Chris Nauroth < > > cnaur...@hortonworks.com > > > > >wrote: > > > > > > > > > +1 > > > > > > > > > > Sounds great! > > > > > > > > > > Regarding testing caching+federation, this is another thing that I > > had > > > > > intended to pick up as part of HDFS-5149. I'm not sure if I can > get > > > this > > > > > done in the next 7 days, so I'll keep you posted. > > > > > > > > > > Chris Nauroth > > > > > Hortonworks > > > > > http://hortonworks.com/ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 11:15 AM, Colin McCabe < > > cmcc...@alumni.cmu.edu > > > > >wrote: > > > > > > > > > >> Hi Chris, > > > > >> > > > > >> I think it's feasible to complete those tasks in the next 7 days. > > > > >> Andrew is on HDFS-5386. > > > > >> > > > > >> The test plan document is a great idea. We'll try to get that up > > > > >> early next week. We have a lot of unit tests now, clearly, but > some > > > > >> manual testing is important too. > > > > >> > > > > >> If we discover any issues during testing, then we can push out the > > > > >> merge timeframe. For example, one area that probably needs more > > > > >> testing is caching+federation. > > > > >> > > > > >> I would like to get HDFS-5378 and HDFS-5366 in as well. > > > > >> > > > > >> The other subtasks are "nice to have" but not really critical, > and I > > > > >> think it would be just as easy to do them in trunk. We're hoping > > that > > > > >> having this in trunk will make it easier for us to collaborate on > > > > >> HDFS-2832 and other ongoing work. > > > > >> > > > > >> > Also, I want to confirm that this vote only covers trunk. > > > > >> > I don't see branch-2 mentioned, so I assume that we're > > > > >> > not voting on merge to branch-2 yet. > > > > >> > > > > >> Yeah, this vote is only to merge to trunk. > > > > >> > > > > >> cheers. > > > > >> Colin > > > > >> > > > > >> On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 10:48 AM, Chris Nauroth > > > > >> <cnaur...@hortonworks.com> wrote: > > > > >> > I agree that the code has reached a stable point. Colin and > > Andrew, > > > > >> thank > > > > >> > you for your contributions and collaboration. > > > > >> > > > > > >> > Throughout development, I've watched the feature grow by running > > > daily > > > > >> > builds in a pseudo-distributed deployment. As of this week, the > > > full > > > > >> > feature set is working end-to-end. I also think we've reached a > > > point > > > > >> of > > > > >> > API stability for clients who want to control caching > > > > programmatically. > > > > >> > > > > > >> > There are several things that I'd like to see completed before > the > > > > >> merge as > > > > >> > pre-requisites: > > > > >> > > > > > >> > - HDFS-5203: Concurrent clients that add a cache directive on > the > > > same > > > > >> path > > > > >> > may prematurely uncache from each other. > > > > >> > - HDFS-5385: Caching RPCs are AtMostOnce, but do not persist > > client > > > ID > > > > >> and > > > > >> > call ID to edit log. > > > > >> > - HDFS-5386: Add feature documentation for datanode caching. > > > > >> > - Standard clean-ups to satisfy Jenkins pre-commit on the merge > > > patch. > > > > >> > (For example, I know we've introduced some Javadoc warnings.) > > > > >> > - Full test suite run on Windows. (The feature is not yet > > > implemented > > > > >> on > > > > >> > Windows. This is just intended to catch regressions.) > > > > >> > - Test plan posted to HDFS-4949, similar in scope to the > snapshot > > > test > > > > >> plan > > > > >> > that was posted to HDFS-2802. For my own part, I've run the new > > > unit > > > > >> > tests, and I've tested end-to-end in a pseudo-distributed > > > deployment. > > > > >> It's > > > > >> > unlikely that I'll get a chance to test fully distributed before > > the > > > > >> vote > > > > >> > closes, so I'm curious to hear if you've done this on your side > > yet. > > > > >> > > > > > >> > Also, I want to confirm that this vote only covers trunk. I > don't > > > see > > > > >> > branch-2 mentioned, so I assume that we're not voting on merge > to > > > > >> branch-2 > > > > >> > yet. > > > > >> > > > > > >> > Before I cast my vote, can you please discuss whether or not > it's > > > > >> feasible > > > > >> > to complete all of the above in the next 7 days? For the issues > > > > >> assigned > > > > >> > to me, I do expect to complete them. > > > > >> > > > > > >> > Thanks again for all of your hard work! > > > > >> > > > > > >> > Chris Nauroth > > > > >> > Hortonworks > > > > >> > http://hortonworks.com/ > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > On Thu, Oct 17, 2013 at 3:07 PM, Colin McCabe < > > > cmcc...@alumni.cmu.edu > > > > >> >wrote: > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> +1. Thanks, guys. > > > > >> >> > > > > >> >> best, > > > > >> >> Colin > > > > >> >> > > > > >> >> On Thu, Oct 17, 2013 at 3:01 PM, Andrew Wang < > > > > andrew.w...@cloudera.com > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> wrote: > > > > >> >> > Hello all, > > > > >> >> > > > > > >> >> > I'd like to call a vote to merge the HDFS-4949 branch > > (in-memory > > > > >> caching) > > > > >> >> > to trunk. Colin McCabe and I have been hard at work the last > > 3.5 > > > > >> months > > > > >> >> > implementing this feature, and feel that it's reached a level > > of > > > > >> >> stability > > > > >> >> > and utility where it's ready for broader testing and > > integration. > > > > >> >> > > > > > >> >> > I'd also like to thank Chris Nauroth at Hortonworks for code > > > > reviews > > > > >> and > > > > >> >> > bug fixes, and everyone who's reviewed the HDFS-4949 design > doc > > > and > > > > >> left > > > > >> >> > comments. > > > > >> >> > > > > > >> >> > Obviously, I am +1 for the merge. The vote will run the > > standard > > > 7 > > > > >> days, > > > > >> >> > closing on October 24 at 11:59PM. > > > > >> >> > > > > > >> >> > Thanks, > > > > >> >> > Andrew > > > > >> >> > > > > >> > > > > > >> > -- > > > > >> > CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE > > > > >> > NOTICE: This message is intended for the use of the individual > or > > > > >> entity to > > > > >> > which it is addressed and may contain information that is > > > > confidential, > > > > >> > privileged and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If > the > > > > >> reader > > > > >> > of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby > > > notified > > > > >> that > > > > >> > any printing, copying, dissemination, distribution, disclosure > or > > > > >> > forwarding of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you > > have > > > > >> > received this communication in error, please contact the sender > > > > >> immediately > > > > >> > and delete it from your system. Thank You. > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE > > > > NOTICE: This message is intended for the use of the individual or > > entity > > > to > > > > which it is addressed and may contain information that is > confidential, > > > > privileged and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the > > reader > > > > of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby > notified > > > that > > > > any printing, copying, dissemination, distribution, disclosure or > > > > forwarding of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have > > > > received this communication in error, please contact the sender > > > immediately > > > > and delete it from your system. Thank You. > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE > > NOTICE: This message is intended for the use of the individual or entity > to > > which it is addressed and may contain information that is confidential, > > privileged and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader > > of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified > that > > any printing, copying, dissemination, distribution, disclosure or > > forwarding of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have > > received this communication in error, please contact the sender > immediately > > and delete it from your system. Thank You. > > > -- http://hortonworks.com/download/ -- CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE NOTICE: This message is intended for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is confidential, privileged and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any printing, copying, dissemination, distribution, disclosure or forwarding of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please contact the sender immediately and delete it from your system. Thank You.
