I usually use:

mvn clean install -DskipTests

and it works.

On Wed, Oct 12, 2016 at 1:01 PM, Vladimir Rodionov <vladrodio...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Michael,
>
> you can try master + latest patch on HBASE-14123 (v29). No need to use
> HBASE-7912 branch. I will double check HBASE-7912.
>
> -Vlad
>
> On Wed, Oct 12, 2016 at 12:31 PM, Stack <st...@duboce.net> wrote:
>
>> 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 <st...@duboce.net> 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 <a...@cloudera.com>
>> > 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 <st...@duboce.net> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 1:50 PM, Vladimir Rodionov <
>> >> vladrodio...@gmail.com
>> >> > >
>> >> > wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > > Michael,
>> >> > >
>> >> > > Its in HBASE-7912
>> >> > >
>> >> > > This is tip of git log:
>> >> > >
>> >> > > commit a072f6f49a26a7259ff2aaef6cb56d85eb592482
>> >> > > Author: Frank Welsch <fwel...@jps.net>
>> >> > > Date:   Fri Sep 23 18:00:42 2016 -0400
>> >> > >
>> >> > >     HBASE-16574 Book updates for backup and restore
>> >> > >
>> >> > > commit b14e2ab1c24e65ff88dd4c579acf83cb4ed0605e
>> >> > > Author: tedyu <yuzhih...@gmail.com>
>> >> > > 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 <st...@duboce.net> 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 <
>> >> > > > vladrodio...@gmail.com>
>> >> > > > 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 <
>> >> > > > vladrodio...@gmail.com
>> >> > > > > >
>> >> > > > > 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-155312
>> 37
>> >> > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > Can we do merge first? Then we can discuss separate module.
>> >> > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > -Vlad
>> >> > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > On Mon, Oct 10, 2016 at 3:44 PM, Ted Yu <yuzhih...@gmail.com
>> >
>> >> > 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 <st...@duboce.net>
>> >> 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 <
>> >> > > > > >> vladrodio...@gmail.com
>> >> > > > > >> > >
>> >> > > > > >> > 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 <
>> >> yuzhih...@gmail.com>
>> >> > > > > 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 <
>> >> > > > > 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
>> >> > > > > >> > > > >
>> >> > > > > >> > > >
>> >> > > > > >> > >
>> >> > > > > >> >
>> >> > > > > >>
>> >> > > > > >
>> >> > > > > >
>> >> > > > >
>> >> > > >
>> >> > >
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >>
>> >> -- Appy
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>>
>
>

Reply via email to