+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 <bus...@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 <j...@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.purt...@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 <yuzhih...@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 <apurt...@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 < > syuanjiang...@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 <bus...@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 <ecl...@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 <st...@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 < > >> >>>> syuanjiang...@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 < > >> >>> apurt...@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 < > >> >> j...@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 < > >> >>> j...@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 < > >> >>>> j...@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...@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 > >> >>>>>>>>>>> // j...@cloudera.com // @jmhsieh > >> >>>>>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>>>>> -- > >> >>>>>>>>>> // Jonathan Hsieh (shay) > >> >>>>>>>>>> // HBase Tech Lead, Software Engineer, Cloudera > >> >>>>>>>>>> // j...@cloudera.com // @jmhsieh > >> >>>>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>>>> -- > >> >>>>>>>>> // Jonathan Hsieh (shay) > >> >>>>>>>>> // HBase Tech Lead, Software Engineer, Cloudera > >> >>>>>>>>> // j...@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 > > // j...@cloudera.com // @jmhsieh > -- Best regards, - Andy Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet Hein (via Tom White)
