checked out HBASE-7912

ran:

mvn clean install -DskipTests

successfully.

-Vlad

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

> 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.j
>>> ava:[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.j
>>> ava:[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.j
>>> ava:[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.j
>>> ava:[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.j
>>> ava:[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.j
>>> ava:[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:c
>>> omment-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 <
>>> 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