I'd like to see the docs proposed on HBASE-16574 integrated into our project's documentation prior to merge.
On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 9:02 AM, Ted Yu <yuzhih...@gmail.com> wrote: > This feature can be marked experimental due to some limitations such as > security. > > Your previous round of comments have been addressed. > Command line tool has gone through: > > HBASE-16620 Fix backup command-line tool usability issues > HBASE-16655 hbase backup describe with incorrect backup id results in NPE > > The updated doc has been attached to HBASE-16574. > > Cheers > > On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 8:53 AM, Stack <st...@duboce.net> wrote: > >> On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 7:43 AM, Ted Yu <yuzhih...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> > Are there more (review) comments ? >> > >> > >> Are outstanding comments addressed? >> >> I don't see answer to my 'is this experimental/will it be marked >> experimental' question. >> >> I ran into some issues trying to use the feature and suggested that a >> feature likes this needs polish else it'll just rot, unused. Has polish >> been applied? All ready for another 'user' test? Suggest that you update >> here going forward for the benefit of those trying to follow along and who >> are not watching JIRA change fly-by. >> >> It looks like doc got a revision -- I have to check -- to take on >> suggestion made above but again, suggest, that this thread gets updated. >> >> Thanks, >> St.Ack >> >> >> >> > Thanks >> > >> > On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 10:02 AM, Devaraj Das <d...@hortonworks.com> >> > wrote: >> > >> > > Just reviving this thread. Thanks Sean, Stack, Dima, and others for the >> > > thorough reviews and testing. Thanks Ted and Vlad for taking care of >> the >> > > feedback. Are we all good to do the merge now? Rather do sooner than >> > later. >> > > ________________________________________ >> > > From: saint....@gmail.com <saint....@gmail.com> on behalf of Stack < >> > > st...@duboce.net> >> > > Sent: Monday, September 12, 2016 1:18 PM >> > > To: HBase Dev List >> > > Subject: Re: [DISCUSSION] Merge Backup / Restore - Branch HBASE-7912 >> > > >> > > On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 12:19 PM, Ted Yu <yuzhih...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > > >> > > > Mega patch (rev 18) is on HBASE-14123. >> > > > >> > > > Please comment on HBASE-14123 on how you want to review. >> > > > >> > > >> > > >> > > Yeah. That was my lost tab. Last rb was 6 months ago. Suggest updating >> > it. >> > > RB is pretty good for review. Patch is only 1.5M so should be fine. >> > > >> > > St.Ack >> > > >> > > >> > > > >> > > > Thanks >> > > > >> > > > On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 12:15 PM, Stack <st...@duboce.net> wrote: >> > > > >> > > > > On review of the 'patch', do I just compare the branch to master or >> > is >> > > > > there a megapatch posted somewhere (I think I saw one but it seemed >> > > stale >> > > > > and then I 'lost' the tab). Sorry for dumb question. >> > > > > St.Ack >> > > > > >> > > > > On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 12:01 PM, Stack <st...@duboce.net> wrote: >> > > > > >> > > > > > Late to the game. A few comments after rereading this thread as a >> > > > 'user'. >> > > > > > >> > > > > > + Before merge, a user-facing feature like this should work (If >> > this >> > > is >> > > > > "higher-bar >> > > > > > for new features", bring it on -- smile). >> > > > > > + As a user, I tried the branch with tools after reviewing the >> > > > > just-posted >> > > > > > doc. I had an 'interesting' experience (left comments up on >> > issue). I >> > > > > think >> > > > > > the tooling/doc. important to get right. If it breaks easily or >> is >> > > > > > inconsistent (or lacks 'polish'), operators will judge the whole >> > > > > > backup/restore tooling chain as not trustworthy and abandon it. >> > Lets >> > > > not >> > > > > > have this happen to this feature. >> > > > > > + Matteo's suggestion (with a helpful starter list) that there >> > needs >> > > to >> > > > > be >> > > > > > explicit qualification on what is actually being delivered -- >> > > > including a >> > > > > > listing of limitations (some look serious such as data bleed from >> > > other >> > > > > > regions in WALs, but maybe I don't care for my use case...) -- >> > needs >> > > to >> > > > > > accompany the merge. Lets fold them into the user doc. in the >> > > technical >> > > > > > overview area as suggested so user expectations are properly >> > managed >> > > > > > (otherwise, they expect the world and will just give up when we >> > fall >> > > > > > short). Vladimir did a list of what is in each of the phases >> above >> > > > which >> > > > > > would serve as a good start. >> > > > > > + Is this feature 'experimental' (Matteo asks above). I'd prefer >> it >> > > is >> > > > > > not. If it is, it should be labelled all over that it is so. I >> see >> > > > > current >> > > > > > state called out as a '... technical preview feature'. Does this >> > mean >> > > > > > not-for-users? >> > > > > > >> > > > > > St.Ack >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 8:03 AM, Ted Yu <yuzhih...@gmail.com> >> > wrote: >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> Sean: >> > > > > >> Do you have more comments ? >> > > > > >> >> > > > > >> Cheers >> > > > > >> >> > > > > >> On Fri, Sep 9, 2016 at 1:42 PM, Vladimir Rodionov < >> > > > > vladrodio...@gmail.com >> > > > > >> > >> > > > > >> wrote: >> > > > > >> >> > > > > >> > Sean, >> > > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > Backup/Restore can fail due to various reasons: network outage >> > > > > (cluster >> > > > > >> > wide), various time-outs in HBase and HDFS layer, M/R failure >> > due >> > > to >> > > > > >> "HDFS >> > > > > >> > exceeded quota", user error (manual deletion of data) and so >> on >> > so >> > > > on. >> > > > > >> That >> > > > > >> > is impossible to enumerate all possible types of failures in a >> > > > > >> distributed >> > > > > >> > system - that is not our goal/task. >> > > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > We focus completely on backup system table consistency in a >> > > presence >> > > > > of >> > > > > >> any >> > > > > >> > type of failure. That is what I call "tolerance to failures". >> > > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > On a failure: >> > > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > BACKUP. All backup system information (prior to backup) will >> be >> > > > > restored >> > > > > >> > and all temporary data, related to a failed session, in HDFS >> > will >> > > be >> > > > > >> > deleted >> > > > > >> > RESTORE. We do not care about system data, because restore >> does >> > > not >> > > > > >> change >> > > > > >> > it. Temporary data in HDFS will be cleaned up and table will >> be >> > > in a >> > > > > >> state >> > > > > >> > back to where it was before operation started. >> > > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > This is what user should expect in case of a failure. >> > > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > -Vlad >> > > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > -Vlad >> > > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > On Fri, Sep 9, 2016 at 12:56 PM, Sean Busbey < >> bus...@apache.org >> > > >> > > > > wrote: >> > > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > > Failing in a consistent way, with docs that explain the >> > various >> > > > > >> > > expected failures would be sufficient. >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > >> > > On Fri, Sep 9, 2016 at 12:16 PM, Vladimir Rodionov >> > > > > >> > > <vladrodio...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > > > > >> > > > Do not worry Sean, doc is coming today as a preview and >> our >> > > > writer >> > > > > >> > Frank >> > > > > >> > > > will be working on a putting it into Apache repo. >> Timeline >> > > > > depends >> > > > > >> on >> > > > > >> > > > Franks schedule but I hope we will get it rather sooner >> than >> > > > > later. >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > >> > > > As for failure testing, we are focusing only on a >> consistent >> > > > state >> > > > > >> of >> > > > > >> > > > backup system data in a presence of any type of failures, >> We >> > > are >> > > > > not >> > > > > >> > > going >> > > > > >> > > > to implement anything more "fancy", than that. We allow >> > both: >> > > > > >> backup >> > > > > >> > and >> > > > > >> > > > restore to fail. What we do not allow is to have system >> data >> > > > > >> corrupted. >> > > > > >> > > > Will it suffice for you? Do you have any other concerns, >> you >> > > > want >> > > > > >> us to >> > > > > >> > > > address? >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > >> > > > -Vlad >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > >> > > > On Fri, Sep 9, 2016 at 10:56 AM, Sean Busbey < >> > > bus...@apache.org >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > wrote: >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> "docs will come to Apache soon" does not address my >> concern >> > > > > around >> > > > > >> > docs >> > > > > >> > > at >> > > > > >> > > >> all, unless said docs have already made it into the >> project >> > > > > repo. I >> > > > > >> > > don't >> > > > > >> > > >> want third party resources for using a major and >> important >> > > > > feature >> > > > > >> of >> > > > > >> > > the >> > > > > >> > > >> project, I want us to provide end users with what they >> need >> > > to >> > > > > get >> > > > > >> the >> > > > > >> > > job >> > > > > >> > > >> done. >> > > > > >> > > >> >> > > > > >> > > >> I see some calls for patience on the failure testing, but >> > the >> > > > > >> appeal >> > > > > >> > to >> > > > > >> > > us >> > > > > >> > > >> having done a bad job of requiring proper tests of >> previous >> > > > > >> features >> > > > > >> > > just >> > > > > >> > > >> makes me more concerned about not getting them here. I >> > don't >> > > > want >> > > > > >> to >> > > > > >> > set >> > > > > >> > > >> yet another bad example that will then be pointed to in >> the >> > > > > future. >> > > > > >> > > >> >> > > > > >> > > >> On Sep 8, 2016 10:50, "Ted Yu" <yuzhih...@gmail.com> >> > wrote: >> > > > > >> > > >> >> > > > > >> > > >> > Is there any concern which is not addressed ? >> > > > > >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > > >> > Do we need another Vote thread ? >> > > > > >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > > >> > Thanks >> > > > > >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > > >> > On Thu, Sep 8, 2016 at 9:21 AM, Andrew Purtell < >> > > > > >> apurt...@apache.org >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > wrote: >> > > > > >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > Vlad, >> > > > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > I apologize for using the term 'half-baked' in a way >> > that >> > > > > could >> > > > > >> > > seem a >> > > > > >> > > >> > > description of HBASE-7912. I meant that as a general >> > > > > >> hypothetical. >> > > > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > On Wed, Sep 7, 2016 at 9:36 AM, Vladimir Rodionov < >> > > > > >> > > >> > vladrodio...@gmail.com> >> > > > > >> > > >> > > wrote: >> > > > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > >> I'm not sure that "There is already lots of >> > > half-baked >> > > > > >> code >> > > > > >> > in >> > > > > >> > > the >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > branch, >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > so what's the harm in adding more?" >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > I meant - not production - ready yet. This is 2.0 >> > > > > development >> > > > > >> > > branch >> > > > > >> > > >> > and, >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > hence many features are in works, >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > not being tested well etc. I do not consider backup >> > as >> > > > half >> > > > > >> > baked >> > > > > >> > > >> > > feature - >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > it has passed our internal QA and has very good >> doc, >> > > > which >> > > > > we >> > > > > >> > will >> > > > > >> > > >> > > provide >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > to Apache shortly. >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > -Vlad >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > On Wed, Sep 7, 2016 at 9:13 AM, Andrew Purtell < >> > > > > >> > > apurt...@apache.org> >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > wrote: >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > We shouldn't admit half baked changes that won't >> be >> > > > > >> finished. >> > > > > >> > > >> However >> > > > > >> > > >> > > in >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > this case the crew working on this feature are >> long >> > > > > timers >> > > > > >> and >> > > > > >> > > less >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > likely >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > than just about anyone to leave something in a >> half >> > > > baked >> > > > > >> > > state. Of >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > course >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > there is no guarantee how anything will turn out, >> > > but I >> > > > > am >> > > > > >> > > willing >> > > > > >> > > >> to >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > take >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > a little on faith if they feel their best path >> > > forward >> > > > > now >> > > > > >> is >> > > > > >> > to >> > > > > >> > > >> > merge >> > > > > >> > > >> > > to >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > trunk. I only wish I had bandwidth to have done >> > some >> > > > real >> > > > > >> > > kicking >> > > > > >> > > >> of >> > > > > >> > > >> > > the >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > tires by now. Maybe this week. >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > (Yes, I'm using some of that time for this email >> > :-) >> > > > but >> > > > > I >> > > > > >> > type >> > > > > >> > > >> > fast.) >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > That said, I would like to agitate for making 2.0 >> > > more >> > > > > real >> > > > > >> > and >> > > > > >> > > >> spend >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > some >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > time on it now that I'm winding down with 0.98. I >> > > think >> > > > > >> that >> > > > > >> > > means >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > branching for 2.0 real soon now and even evicting >> > > > things >> > > > > >> from >> > > > > >> > > 2.0 >> > > > > >> > > >> > > branch >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > that aren't finished or stable, leaving them only >> > > once >> > > > > >> again >> > > > > >> > in >> > > > > >> > > the >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > master >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > branch. Or, maybe just evicting them. Let's take >> it >> > > > case >> > > > > by >> > > > > >> > > case. >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > I think this feature can come in relatively >> safely. >> > > As >> > > > > >> added >> > > > > >> > > >> > insurance, >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > let's admit the possibility it could be reverted >> on >> > > the >> > > > > 2.0 >> > > > > >> > > branch >> > > > > >> > > >> if >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > folks >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > working on stabilizing 2.0 decide to evict it >> > because >> > > > it >> > > > > is >> > > > > >> > > >> > unfinished >> > > > > >> > > >> > > or >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > unstable, because that certainly can happen. I >> > would >> > > > > >> expect if >> > > > > >> > > talk >> > > > > >> > > >> > > like >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > that starts, we'd get help finishing or >> stabilizing >> > > > > what's >> > > > > >> > under >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > discussion >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > for revert. Or, we'd have a revert. Either way >> the >> > > > > outcome >> > > > > >> is >> > > > > >> > > >> > > acceptable. >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > On Wed, Sep 7, 2016 at 8:56 AM, Dima Spivak < >> > > > > >> > > dimaspi...@apache.org >> > > > > >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > wrote: >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > I'm not sure that "There is already lots of >> > > > half-baked >> > > > > >> code >> > > > > >> > in >> > > > > >> > > >> the >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > branch, >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > so what's the harm in adding more?" is a good >> > code >> > > > > commit >> > > > > >> > > >> > philosophy >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > for >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > a >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > fault-tolerant distributed data store. ;) >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > More seriously, a lack of test coverage for >> > > existing >> > > > > >> > features >> > > > > >> > > >> > > shouldn't >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > be >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > used as justification for introducing new >> > features >> > > > with >> > > > > >> the >> > > > > >> > > same >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > shortcomings. Ultimately, it's the end user who >> > > will >> > > > > feel >> > > > > >> > the >> > > > > >> > > >> pain, >> > > > > >> > > >> > > so >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > shouldn't we do everything we can to mitigate >> > that? >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > -Dima >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > On Wed, Sep 7, 2016 at 8:46 AM, Vladimir >> > Rodionov < >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > vladrodio...@gmail.com> >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > wrote: >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > Sean, >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > * have docs >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > Agree. We have a doc and backup is the most >> > > > > documented >> > > > > >> > > feature >> > > > > >> > > >> > :), >> > > > > >> > > >> > > we >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > will >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > release it shortly to Apache. >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > * have sunny-day correctness tests >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > Feature has close to 60 test cases, which >> run >> > > for >> > > > > >> approx >> > > > > >> > 30 >> > > > > >> > > >> min. >> > > > > >> > > >> > > We >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > can >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > add more, if community do not mind :) >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > * have correctness-in-face-of-failure tests >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > Any examples of these tests in existing >> > features? >> > > > In >> > > > > >> > works, >> > > > > >> > > we >> > > > > >> > > >> > > have a >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > clear >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > understanding of what should be done by the >> > time >> > > of >> > > > > 2.0 >> > > > > >> > > >> release. >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > That is very close goal for us, to verify IT >> > > monkey >> > > > > for >> > > > > >> > > >> existing >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > code. >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > * don't rely on things outside of HBase for >> > > normal >> > > > > >> > operation >> > > > > >> > > >> > (okay >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > for >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > advanced operation) >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > We do not. >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > Enormous time has been spent already on the >> > > > > development >> > > > > >> > and >> > > > > >> > > >> > testing >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > the >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > feature, it has passed our internal tests and >> > > many >> > > > > >> rounds >> > > > > >> > of >> > > > > >> > > >> code >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > reviews >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > by HBase committers. We do not mind if >> someone >> > > from >> > > > > >> HBase >> > > > > >> > > >> > community >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > (outside of HW) will review the code, but it >> > will >> > > > > >> probably >> > > > > >> > > >> takes >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > forever >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > to >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > wait for volunteer?, the feature is quite >> large >> > > > (1MB+ >> > > > > >> > > >> cumulative >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > patch) >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > 2.0 branch is full of half baked features, >> most >> > > of >> > > > > them >> > > > > >> > are >> > > > > >> > > in >> > > > > >> > > >> > > active >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > development, therefore I am not following you >> > > here, >> > > > > >> Sean? >> > > > > >> > > Why >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > HBASE-7912 >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > is >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > not good enough yet to be integrated into 2.0 >> > > > branch? >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > -Vlad >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > On Wed, Sep 7, 2016 at 8:23 AM, Sean Busbey < >> > > > > >> > > bus...@apache.org >> > > > > >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > wrote: >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 10:36 PM, Josh >> Elser < >> > > > > >> > > >> > > josh.el...@gmail.com> >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > wrote: >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > So, the answer to Sean's original >> question >> > is >> > > > "as >> > > > > >> > > robust as >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > snapshots >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > presently are"? (independence of >> > > backup/restore >> > > > > >> > failure >> > > > > >> > > >> > > tolerance >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > from >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > snapshot failure tolerance) >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > Is this just a question WRT context of >> the >> > > > > change, >> > > > > >> or >> > > > > >> > > is it >> > > > > >> > > >> > > means >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > for a >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > veto >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > from you, Sean? Just trying to make sure >> > I'm >> > > > > >> following >> > > > > >> > > >> along >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > adequately. >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > I'd say ATM I'm -0, bordering on -1 but not >> > for >> > > > > >> reasons >> > > > > >> > I >> > > > > >> > > can >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > articulate >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > well. >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > Here's an attempt. >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > We've been trying to move, as a community, >> > > > towards >> > > > > >> > > minimizing >> > > > > >> > > >> > > risk >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > to >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > downstream folks by getting "complete >> enough >> > > for >> > > > > use" >> > > > > >> > > gates >> > > > > >> > > >> in >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > place >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > before we introduce new features. This was >> > > > spurred >> > > > > >> by a >> > > > > >> > > some >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > features >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > getting in half-baked and never making it >> to >> > > "can >> > > > > >> really >> > > > > >> > > use" >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > status >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > (I'm thinking of distributed log replay and >> > the >> > > > > >> zk-less >> > > > > >> > > >> > > assignment >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > stuff, I don't recall if there was more). >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > The gates, generally, included things like: >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > * have docs >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > * have sunny-day correctness tests >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > * have correctness-in-face-of-failure tests >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > * don't rely on things outside of HBase for >> > > > normal >> > > > > >> > > operation >> > > > > >> > > >> > > (okay >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > for >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > advanced operation) >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > As an example, we kept the MOB work off in >> a >> > > > branch >> > > > > >> and >> > > > > >> > > out >> > > > > >> > > >> of >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > master >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > until it could pass these criteria. The big >> > > > > exemption >> > > > > >> > > we've >> > > > > >> > > >> had >> > > > > >> > > >> > > to >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > this was the hbase-spark integration, where >> > we >> > > > all >> > > > > >> > agreed >> > > > > >> > > it >> > > > > >> > > >> > > could >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > land in master because it was very well >> > > isolated >> > > > > (the >> > > > > >> > > slide >> > > > > >> > > >> > away >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > from >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > including docs as a first-class part of >> > > building >> > > > up >> > > > > >> that >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > integration >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > has led me to doubt the wisdom of this >> > > decision). >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > We've also been treating inclusion in a >> > > "probably >> > > > > >> will >> > > > > >> > be >> > > > > >> > > >> > > released >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > to >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > downstream" branches as a higher bar, >> > requiring >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > * don't moderately impact performance when >> > the >> > > > > >> feature >> > > > > >> > > isn't >> > > > > >> > > >> in >> > > > > >> > > >> > > use >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > * don't severely impact performance when >> the >> > > > > feature >> > > > > >> is >> > > > > >> > in >> > > > > >> > > >> use >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > * either default-to-on or show enough >> demand >> > to >> > > > > >> believe >> > > > > >> > a >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > non-trivial >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > number of folks will turn the feature on >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > The above has kept MOB and hbase-spark >> > > > integration >> > > > > >> out >> > > > > >> > of >> > > > > >> > > >> > > branch-1, >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > presumably while they've "gotten more >> stable" >> > > in >> > > > > >> master >> > > > > >> > > from >> > > > > >> > > >> > the >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > odd >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > vendor inclusion. >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > Are we going to have a 2.0 release before >> the >> > > end >> > > > > of >> > > > > >> the >> > > > > >> > > >> year? >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > We're >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > coming up on 1.5 years since the release of >> > > > version >> > > > > >> 1.0; >> > > > > >> > > >> seems >> > > > > >> > > >> > > like >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > it's about time, though I haven't seen any >> > > > concrete >> > > > > >> > plans >> > > > > >> > > >> this >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > year. >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > Presuming we are going to have one by the >> end >> > > of >> > > > > the >> > > > > >> > > year, it >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > seems a >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > bit close to still be adding in "features >> > that >> > > > need >> > > > > >> > > maturing" >> > > > > >> > > >> > on >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > the >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > branch. >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > The lack of a concrete plan for 2.0 keeps >> me >> > > from >> > > > > >> > > considering >> > > > > >> > > >> > > these >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > things blocker at the moment. But I know >> > first >> > > > hand >> > > > > >> how >> > > > > >> > > much >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > trouble >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > folks have had with other features that >> have >> > > gone >> > > > > >> into >> > > > > >> > > >> > downstream >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > facing releases without robustness checks >> > (i.e. >> > > > > >> > > replication), >> > > > > >> > > >> > and >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > I'm >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > concerned about what we're setting up if >> 2.0 >> > > goes >> > > > > out >> > > > > >> > with >> > > > > >> > > >> this >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > feature in its current state. >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > -- >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > 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) >> > > > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > > >> >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > > >> >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > >> -- busbey
