More info: stack@ve0524:~/hbase.git$ git checkout origin/HBASE-7912 -b 7912v2 Branch 7912v2 set up to track remote branch HBASE-7912 from origin. Switched to a new branch '7912v2' stack@ve0524:~/hbase.git$ java -version java version "1.8.0_101" Java(TM) SE Runtime Environment (build 1.8.0_101-b13) Java HotSpot(TM) 64-Bit Server VM (build 25.101-b13, mixed mode) stack@ve0524:~/hbase.git$ mvn clean install -DskipTests &> /tmp/out.txt
... St.Ack On Wed, Oct 12, 2016 at 12:29 PM, Stack <[email protected]> wrote: > Interesting. When I try it fails w/ below: > > [INFO] 26 warnings > 322 [INFO] ------------------------------------------------------------- > 323 [INFO] ------------------------------------------------------------- > 324 [ERROR] COMPILATION ERROR : > 325 [INFO] ------------------------------------------------------------- > 326 [ERROR] /home/stack/hbase.git/hbase-common/src/main/java/org/ > apache/hadoop/hbase/io/encoding/rowindexV2/RowIndexCodecV2.java:[48,8] > org.apache.hadoop.hbase.io.encoding.rowindexV2.RowIndexCodecV2 is not > abstract and does not override abstract method createSeeker(org.ap > > ache.hadoop.hbase.CellComparator,org.apache.hadoop.hbase.io.encoding.HFileBlockDecodingContext) > in org.apache.hadoop.hbase.io.encoding.DataBlockEncoder > 327 [ERROR] /home/stack/hbase.git/hbase-common/src/main/java/org/ > apache/hadoop/hbase/io/encoding/rowindexV2/RowIndexCodecV2.java:[143,3] > method does not override or implement a method from a supertype > 328 [ERROR] /home/stack/hbase.git/hbase-common/src/main/java/org/ > apache/hadoop/hbase/io/encoding/rowindexV2/RowIndexCodecV2.java:[147,29] > incompatible types: java.nio.ByteBuffer cannot be converted to > org.apache.hadoop.hbase.nio.ByteBuff > 329 [ERROR] /home/stack/hbase.git/hbase-common/src/main/java/org/ > apache/hadoop/hbase/io/encoding/rowindexV2/RowIndexCodecV2.java:[148,33] > cannot find symbol > 330 symbol: method getKeyDeepCopy() > 331 location: variable seeker of type org.apache.hadoop.hbase.io. > encoding.DataBlockEncoder.EncodedSeeker > 332 [ERROR] /home/stack/hbase.git/hbase-common/src/main/java/org/ > apache/hadoop/hbase/io/encoding/rowindexV2/RowIndexCodecV2.java:[153,3] > method does not override or implement a method from a supertype > 333 [ERROR] /home/stack/hbase.git/hbase-common/src/main/java/org/ > apache/hadoop/hbase/io/encoding/rowindexV1/RowIndexCodecV1.java:[45,8] > org.apache.hadoop.hbase.io.encoding.rowindexV1.RowIndexCodecV1 is not > abstract and does not override abstract method createSeeker(org.ap > > ache.hadoop.hbase.CellComparator,org.apache.hadoop.hbase.io.encoding.HFileBlockDecodingContext) > in org.apache.hadoop.hbase.io.encoding.DataBlockEncoder > 334 [ERROR] /home/stack/hbase.git/hbase-common/src/main/java/org/ > apache/hadoop/hbase/io/encoding/rowindexV1/RowIndexCodecV1.java:[145,3] > method does not override or implement a method from a supertype > 335 [ERROR] /home/stack/hbase.git/hbase-common/src/main/java/org/ > apache/hadoop/hbase/io/encoding/rowindexV1/RowIndexCodecV1.java:[158,3] > method does not override or implement a method from a supertype > 336 [ERROR] /home/stack/hbase.git/hbase-common/src/main/java/org/ > apache/hadoop/hbase/io/encoding/rowindexV2/RowIndexSeekerV2.java:[46,8] > org.apache.hadoop.hbase.io.encoding.rowindexV2.RowIndexSeekerV2 is not > abstract and does not override abstract method compareKey(org.ap > ache.hadoop.hbase.CellComparator,org.apache.hadoop.hbase.Cell) in > org.apache.hadoop.hbase.io.encoding.DataBlockEncoder.EncodedSeeker > 337 [ERROR] /home/stack/hbase.git/hbase-common/src/main/java/org/ > apache/hadoop/hbase/io/encoding/rowindexV2/RowIndexSeekerV2.java:[79,3] > method does not override or implement a method from a supertype > 338 [ERROR] /home/stack/hbase.git/hbase-common/src/main/java/org/ > apache/hadoop/hbase/io/encoding/rowindexV2/RowIndexSeekerV2.java:[117,3] > method does not override or implement a method from a supertype > 339 [ERROR] /home/stack/hbase.git/hbase-common/src/main/java/org/ > apache/hadoop/hbase/io/encoding/rowindexV2/RowIndexSeekerV2.java:[190,3] > method does not override or implement a method from a supertype > 340 [ERROR] /home/stack/hbase.git/hbase-common/src/main/java/org/ > apache/hadoop/hbase/io/encoding/rowindexV2/RowIndexSeekerV2.java:[214,3] > method does not override or implement a method from a supertype > 341 [ERROR] /home/stack/hbase.git/hbase-common/src/main/java/org/ > apache/hadoop/hbase/io/encoding/rowindexV2/RowIndexSeekerV2.java:[349,3] > method does not override or implement a method from a supertype > 342 [ERROR] /home/stack/hbase.git/hbase-common/src/main/java/org/ > apache/hadoop/hbase/io/encoding/rowindexV2/RowIndexSeekerV2.java:[355,3] > method does not override or implement a method from a supertype > 343 [ERROR] /home/stack/hbase.git/hbase-common/src/main/java/org/ > apache/hadoop/hbase/io/encoding/rowindexV2/RowIndexSeekerV2.java:[421,36] > no suitable method found for uncompressTags(java.nio. > ByteBuffer,byte[],int,int) > 344 method org.apache.hadoop.hbase.io.TagCompressionContext. > uncompressTags(java.io.InputStream,byte[],int,int) is not applicable > 345 (argument mismatch; java.nio.ByteBuffer cannot be converted to > java.io.InputStream) > 346 method org.apache.hadoop.hbase.io.TagCompressionContext. > uncompressTags(org.apache.hadoop.hbase.nio.ByteBuff,byte[],int,int) is > not applicable > 347 (argument mismatch; java.nio.ByteBuffer cannot be converted to > org.apache.hadoop.hbase.nio.ByteBuff) > > .... > > St.Ack > > On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 5:12 PM, Apekshit Sharma <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> @stack, it compiled for me. >> >> Also tried few commands, and have to say, it's well designed from user >> commands perspective. >> >> On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 5:08 PM, Stack <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> > On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 1:50 PM, Vladimir Rodionov < >> [email protected] >> > > >> > wrote: >> > >> > > Michael, >> > > >> > > Its in HBASE-7912 >> > > >> > > This is tip of git log: >> > > >> > > commit a072f6f49a26a7259ff2aaef6cb56d85eb592482 >> > > Author: Frank Welsch <[email protected]> >> > > Date: Fri Sep 23 18:00:42 2016 -0400 >> > > >> > > HBASE-16574 Book updates for backup and restore >> > > >> > > commit b14e2ab1c24e65ff88dd4c579acf83cb4ed0605e >> > > Author: tedyu <[email protected]> >> > > Date: Wed Oct 5 16:29:40 2016 -0700 >> > > >> > > HBASE-16727 Backup refactoring: remove MR dependencies from >> HMaster >> > > (Vladimir Rodionov) >> > > >> > > >> > Thanks. I have that. I tried it and it doesn't compile for me. Does it >> > compile for you? >> > Thanks, >> > M >> > >> > >> > >> > > -Vlad >> > > >> > > On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 1:44 PM, Stack <[email protected]> wrote: >> > > >> > > > Which branch do I check out to try it? HBASE-7912 is not it. I don't >> > see >> > > an >> > > > HBASE-16727... >> > > > Thanks, >> > > > M >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 11:41 AM, Vladimir Rodionov < >> > > > [email protected]> >> > > > wrote: >> > > > >> > > > > The last patch is on review board: >> > > > > https://reviews.apache.org/r/52748 >> > > > > >> > > > > On Mon, Oct 10, 2016 at 3:52 PM, Vladimir Rodionov < >> > > > [email protected] >> > > > > > >> > > > > wrote: >> > > > > >> > > > > > >> How hard to put in an hbase-backup module? hbase-server is >> fat >> > > > enough >> > > > > > >> already. Could be done as a follow-up. >> > > > > > >> > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-16727? >> > > > > > focusedCommentId=15531237&page=com.atlassian.jira. >> > > > > > plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel#comment-15531237 >> > > > > > >> > > > > > Can we do merge first? Then we can discuss separate module. >> > > > > > >> > > > > > -Vlad >> > > > > > >> > > > > > On Mon, Oct 10, 2016 at 3:44 PM, Ted Yu <[email protected]> >> > wrote: >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> Looks like the first quote was cut off. >> > > > > >> The original sentence was: >> > > > > >> >> > > > > >> bq. no mapreduce job launched from master or region server. >> > > > > >> >> > > > > >> mapreduce job is launched from the node where command line >> tool is >> > > > run. >> > > > > >> >> > > > > >> On Mon, Oct 10, 2016 at 3:38 PM, Stack <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> > > > > >> >> > > > > >> > bq. launched from master or region server. >> > > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > What does this mean please? Has to be run from Master or >> > > > RegionServer? >> > > > > >> Can >> > > > > >> > it be run from another node altogether? >> > > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > On Mon, Oct 10, 2016 at 1:44 PM, Vladimir Rodionov < >> > > > > >> [email protected] >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > >> > wrote: >> > > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > > >> mapreduce dependency has been moved to client side - no >> > > > mapreduce >> > > > > >> job >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > >> > > 1. We have no code in the client module anymore, due to >> > > dependency >> > > > > on >> > > > > >> > > internal server API (HFile and WAL access). >> > > > > >> > > 2. Backup/ restore are client - driven operations, but all >> the >> > > > code >> > > > > >> > resides >> > > > > >> > > in the server module >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > How hard to put in an hbase-backup module? hbase-server is >> fat >> > > > enough >> > > > > >> > already. Could be done as a follow-up. >> > > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > Thanks, >> > > > > >> > St.Ack >> > > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > > 3. No MR in Master, no procedure - driven execution. >> > > > > >> > > 4. Old good MR from command-line. >> > > > > >> > > 5. Security was simplified and now only super-user is >> allowed >> > to >> > > > run >> > > > > >> > > backup/restores. >> > > > > >> > > 6. HBase Backup API was gone due to 1. Now only >> command-line >> > > > access >> > > > > to >> > > > > >> > > backup tools. >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > >> > > These consequences of refactoring has been discussed in >> > > > HBASE-16727. >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > >> > > -Vlad >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > >> > > On Mon, Oct 10, 2016 at 1:31 PM, Ted Yu < >> [email protected]> >> > > > > wrote: >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > >> > > > 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 < >> > > > > [email protected]> >> > > > > >> > > 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 < >> > > [email protected]> >> > > > > >> 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 < >> > [email protected]> >> > > > > >> wrote: >> > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 7:43 AM, Ted Yu < >> > > > [email protected] >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > 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 < >> > > > > >> > > [email protected] >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > 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: [email protected] <[email protected]> >> on >> > > > > behalf >> > > > > >> of >> > > > > >> > > > Stack >> > > > > >> > > > > < >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > [email protected]> >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > 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 < >> > > > > >> [email protected] >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > >> > > > > 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 < >> > > > > >> [email protected]> >> > > > > >> > > > 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 < >> > > > > >> [email protected] >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > >> > > > > 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 < >> > > > > >> > > > [email protected]> >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > wrote: >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> Sean: >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> Do you have more comments ? >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> Cheers >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> On Fri, Sep 9, 2016 at 1:42 PM, Vladimir >> > > > Rodionov >> > > > > < >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > [email protected] >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> 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 < >> > > > > >> > > > > >> [email protected] >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > 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 >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > <[email protected]> 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 < >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > [email protected] >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > 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" < >> > > > > >> > > [email protected] >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > 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 < >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> [email protected] >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > 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 >> > > > > >> > > > > < >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > [email protected]> >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > 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 < >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > [email protected]> >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > 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 >> > > > > >> > > > < >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > [email protected] >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > 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 < >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > [email protected]> >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > 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 < >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > [email protected] >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > wrote: >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 >> at >> > > > 10:36 >> > > > > >> PM, >> > > > > >> > > Josh >> > > > > >> > > > > >> Elser < >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > [email protected]> >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > 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 >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > > >> >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > >> >> >> >> -- >> >> -- Appy >> > >
