I found this problem after looking at it for 5 minutes and it features bugs without even being enabled. I'm wondering if that tree is hiding a massive forrest or not.
J-D On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 11:07 PM, lars hofhansl <[email protected]> wrote: > I did a superficial review of HBASE-4213 and remember I was quite exited > about the promise of the change at > that time. If the problem is just with the MonitoredTask behavior (as > indicated in HBASE-5702) I'd say we try to fix that. > > -- Lars > > > > ________________________________ > From: Stack <[email protected]> > To: [email protected]; lars hofhansl <[email protected]> > Sent: Monday, April 2, 2012 9:05 PM > Subject: Re: Pull instant schema updating out? > > On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 6:04 PM, lars hofhansl <[email protected]> wrote: >> How much duplicate code are we talking about? Do these share common code to >> close/open the regions, or is it a completely different code path? (I know I >> could look myself, but it's easier to ask) >> >> From a gut reaction it feels cleaner to keep track of the state of the alter >> in ZK. >> >> > > Both are incomplete. The approaches share no code. The conversation > Ted cites is from nearly a year ago (and is nought but our platitudes > that the authors get together on the problem which didn't happen; the > context did not help w/ one part-time on the job and the other a > summer intern). Neither has a sponsor. The "Online schema update" is > at least used in a few places, cautiously. What should happen is we > should pull out both and replace with a working online schema > mechanism. Until that happens undo at least one of them before > someone other than J-D gets hurt. I vote for pulling "Online schema > update". > > St.Ack
