I like Cos' idea. Cheers
On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 4:34 PM, Konstantin Boudnik <[email protected]> wrote: > I am +1 on b) because it will naturally allow for a continuation of 1.x > development. > > In all honesty, I found that notorious git branching model works > perfectly for such situations. One thing to mention: unlike > http://nvie.com/posts/a-successful-git-branching-model/ it'll force a > significant number of cherry-picking from the master (and SHA1 changes on > such > commits). > Perhaps it might be a good time to reconsider what has been working ok for > Hadoop on SVN and look into something that's more natural for Git > branching? > > Cos > > On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 07:16PM, Jean-Marc Spaggiari wrote: > > For people voting, can you please put small comments regarding why you > > prefer a solution versus the other one? Just for knowledge sharing... > > > > Thanks, > > > > JM > > > > > > 2014-06-10 19:05 GMT-04:00 Mikhail Antonov <[email protected]>: > > > > > I think jiras on ZK abstraction can still get committed (I'll make > sure to > > > have all non-trivial patches posted on RB for discussion to make sure > we > > > don't accidentally introduce any instability). > > > > > > On jiras. > > > > > > Under HBASE-10909: > > > - HBASE-11069 (region merge transaction) is close to completion, just > > > needs rebasing/merging, so we should have the new patch soon > > > - HBASE-11072 (WAL splitting) - there's progress going on here, I > think > > > we're going to have patch up for reviews pretty soon. > > > - HBASE-11073 (abstract Zk Watcher and listeners) - should have first > > > patch up for review in a week or two > > > > > > Besides that, we should have HBASE-4495 (get rid of CatalogTracker) > too. > > > > > > Further steps on abstraction (involving changing/simplifying the way we > > > keep state in ZK) require coordination engine (as described in > consensus > > > design doc), which has been proposed in hadoop-common (for the time > being I > > > guess we can add this engine directly to HBase to speedup > development?). > > > > > > Mikhail > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2014-06-10 15:46 GMT-07:00 Stack <[email protected]>: > > > > > > > +1 on option b) > > > > > > > > On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 3:28 PM, Konstantin Boudnik <[email protected]> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > +1 on the #2. > > > > > > > > > > One question though: do you envision that the work around > coordinated > > > > > replication won't be able to go into branch-1 anymore? > > > > > > > > > > > > > Its not done and it is far along with Mikhail making good progress. > I'd > > > be > > > > up for keeping up reviews and commit (if thats OK w/ you Mr. RM). > > > > > > > > How much you think could make 1.0 Cos/Mikhail? Which issues. > > > > > > > > St.Ack > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > Thanks, > > > Michael Antonov > > > >
