Reviving this thread. The following has taken place:
mapreduce dependency has been moved to client side - no mapreduce job launched from master or region server. document patch (HBASE-16574) has been integrated. Updated mega patch has been attached to HBASE-14123: this covers the refactor in #1 above and the protobuf 3 merge. If community has more feedback on the merge proposal, I would love to hear it. Thanks On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 10:31 AM, Sean Busbey <bus...@cloudera.com> wrote: > 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 >
