On Fri, Mar 10, 2017 at 6:01 PM, Ted Yu <yuzhih...@gmail.com> wrote: > HBASE-14123 branch has been created, with Vlad's mega patch v61. >
The patch put up for VOTE here was done on a branch. The call to merge seems to have been premature given the many cycles of review and test that happened subsequent (The cycles burned a bunch of dev resource). The patch as is is now in a state where it is too big for our infra; rb and JIRA are creaking under the size and # of iterations. Adding finish of new JIRAs to this merge implies a new round of review and test of an already massive patch. Who is going to do this work? Going back to a new branch seems wrong route to take. St.Ack > FYI > > On Fri, Mar 10, 2017 at 3:30 PM, Ted Yu <yuzhih...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Thanks for the feedback, Andrew. > > > > How about the following plan: > > > > create branch HBASE-14123 off of master with mega patch v61 as the first > > commit (reviewed by Stack and Enis) > > Vlad and I continue development (the 3 blockers) based on HBASE-14123 > > branch > > when all of the blockers get +1 and merged into HBASE-14123 branch, we > > propose to community for merging into branch-2 (master branch, if > branch-2 > > doesn't materialize for whatever reason) again > > > > Cheers > > > > > > On Fri, Mar 10, 2017 at 3:01 PM, Andrew Purtell <apurt...@apache.org> > > wrote: > > > >> Thanks for the offer but I like that you were honest about compiling a > >> list > >> of issues that you thought were blockers for release. Since this > proposal > >> is a merge into 2.0, and we are trying to release 2.0, I am -1 on this > >> merge until those blockers are addressed. > >> > >> I had a look at the list. > >> > >> I think the documentation issue is important but not actually a blocker. > >> That may be a controversial opinion, but documentation can be > back-filled > >> worst case. So take HBASE-17133 off the list. > >> > >> Remaining are effectively HBASE-14417, HBASE-14141, and HBASE-15227. > They > >> all have patches attached to the respective JIRAs so completing this > work > >> won't be onerous. Get these committed and I will lift my -1. The others > >> who > >> voted +1 on this thread surely can help with that. > >> > >> Thanks. > >> > >> > >> On Fri, Mar 10, 2017 at 2:32 PM, Vladimir Rodionov < > >> vladrodio...@gmail.com> > >> wrote: > >> > >> > No problem I will downgrade Blockers to Majors if it scares you, > Andrew > >> 🙂 > >> > > >> > Sent from my iPhone > >> > > >> > > On Mar 10, 2017, at 1:52 PM, Andrew Purtell <apurt...@apache.org> > >> wrote: > >> > > > >> > > ​I know the merge of this feature has lagged substantially. I think > >> that > >> > is > >> > > regrettable but on another thread we are lamenting that 2.0 is > already > >> > > late. Unless I misunderstand, this is a proposal to merge something > >> with > >> > > known blockers into trunk before we branch it for 2.0 which will > >> > > effectively prevent that release because these blockers will be > >> there. I > >> > am > >> > > inclined to veto. Probably we should not propose branch merges into > >> code > >> > we > >> > > are trying to get out the door with known blockers. Why not do that > >> work > >> > > first? It seems an obvious question. Perhaps I am missing something. > >> > > > >> > > If we can branch for 2.0 now and then merge this, and not into the > 2.0 > >> > > branch, I would vote +1 for branch merge even with known blockers > >> > pending. > >> > > ​ > >> > > > >> > > On Fri, Mar 10, 2017 at 1:42 PM, Vladimir Rodionov < > >> > vladrodio...@gmail.com> > >> > > wrote: > >> > > > >> > >> They are not blockers for merge - only for 2.0. GA > >> > >> As I said already the feature is usable right now > >> > >> We would like to continue working on master and we would like to > see > >> a > >> > >> commitment from community > >> > >> > >> > >> Sent from my iPhone > >> > >> > >> > >> On Mar 10, 2017, at 11:16 AM, Andrew Purtell <apurt...@apache.org> > >> > wrote: > >> > >> > >> > >>>> Only BLOCKERs and CRITICALs are guaranteed for HBase 2.0 release. > >> > >>> > >> > >>> If we have identified blockers, why merge this before they are in? > >> > >>> Otherwise we can't release 2.0, and it is overdue. > >> > >>> > >> > >>> > >> > >>> On Wed, Mar 8, 2017 at 1:32 PM, Vladimir Rodionov < > >> > >> vladrodio...@gmail.com> > >> > >>> wrote: > >> > >>> > >> > >>>> Hello, HBase folks > >> > >>>> > >> > >>>> For your consideration today is Backup/Restore feature for Apache > >> > HBAse > >> > >>>> 2.0. > >> > >>>> Backup code is available as a mega patch in HBASE-14123 (v61), > >> applies > >> > >>>> cleanly to the current master, all test PASS, patch has no other > >> > issues. > >> > >>>> > >> > >>>> The patch has gone through numerous rounds of code reviews and > has > >> > >> probably > >> > >>>> the most lengthy discussion thread on Apache JIRA (HBASE-14123) > :) > >> > >>>> > >> > >>>> The work has been split into 3 phases (HBASE-14030, 14123, 14414) > >> Two > >> > >> first > >> > >>>> are complete, third one is still in progress. > >> > >>>> > >> > >>>> > >> > >>>> *** Summary of work HBASE-14123 > >> > >>>> > >> > >>>> The new feature introduces new command-line extensions to the > hbase > >> > >> command > >> > >>>> and, from the client side, is accessible through command-line > only > >> > >>>> Operations: > >> > >>>> * Create full backup on a list of tables or backup set > >> > >>>> * Create incremental backup image for table list or backup set > >> > >>>> * Restore list of tables from a given backup image > >> > >>>> * Show current backup progress > >> > >>>> * Delete backup image and all related images > >> > >>>> * Show history of backups > >> > >>>> * Backup set operations: create backup set, add/remove table > >> to/from > >> > >> backup > >> > >>>> set, etc > >> > >>>> > >> > >>>> In the current implementation, the feature is already usable, > >> meaning > >> > >> that > >> > >>>> users can backup tables and restore them using provided > >> command-line > >> > >> tools. > >> > >>>> Both: full and incremental backups are supported. > >> > >>>> This work is based on original work of IBM team (HBASE-7912). The > >> full > >> > >> list > >> > >>>> of JIRAs included in this mega patch can be found in three > umbrella > >> > >> JIRAs: > >> > >>>> HBASE-14030 (Phase 1), HBASE-14123 (Phase 2) and HBASE-14414 > >> (Phase 3 > >> > - > >> > >> all > >> > >>>> resolved ones made it into the patch) > >> > >>>> > >> > >>>> *** What are the remaining work items > >> > >>>> > >> > >>>> All remaining items can be found in Phase 3 umbrella JIRA: > >> > HBASE-14414. > >> > >>>> They are split into 3 groups: BLOCKER, CRITICAL, MAJOR > >> > >>>> Only BLOCKERs and CRITICALs are guaranteed for HBase 2.0 release. > >> > >>>> > >> > >>>> ***** BLOCKER > >> > >>>> > >> > >>>> * HBASE-14417 Incremental backup and bulk loading ( Patch > >> available) > >> > >>>> * HBASE-14135 HBase Backup/Restore Phase 3: Merge backup images > >> > >>>> * HBASE-14141 HBase Backup/Restore Phase 3: Filter WALs on backup > >> to > >> > >>>> include only edits from backup tables (Patch available) > >> > >>>> * HBASE-17133 Backup documentation > >> > >>>> * HBASE-15227 Fault tolerance support > >> > >>>> > >> > >>>> ***** CRITICAL > >> > >>>> > >> > >>>> * HBASE-16465 Disable split/merges during backup > >> > >>>> > >> > >>>> We have umbrella JIRA (HBASE-14414) to track all the remaining > work > >> > >>>> All the BLOCKER and CRITICAL JIRAs currently in open state will > be > >> > >>>> implemented by 2.0 release time. Some MAJOR too, but it depends > on > >> > >> resource > >> > >>>> availability > >> > >>>> The former development branch (HBASE-7912) is obsolete and will > be > >> > >>>> closed/deleted after the merge. > >> > >>>> We want backup to be a GA feature in 2.0 > >> > >>>> We are going to support full backward compatibility for backup > >> tool in > >> > >> 2.0 > >> > >>>> and onwards. > >> > >>>> > >> > >>>> **** Configuration > >> > >>>> > >> > >>>> Backup is disabled, by default. To enable it, the following > >> > >> configuration > >> > >>>> properties must be added to hbase-site.xml: > >> > >>>> > >> > >>>> hbase.backup.enable=true > >> > >>>> hbase.master.logcleaner.plugins=YOUR_PLUGINS,org. > >> > >>>> apache.hadoop.hbase.backup.master.BackupLogCleaner > >> > >>>> hbase.procedure.master.classes=YOUR_CLASSES,org. > >> > >>>> apache.hadoop.hbase.backup.master.LogRollMasterProcedureManager > >> > >>>> hbase.procedure.regionserver.classes=YOUR_CLASSES,org. > >> > >>>> apache.hadoop.hbase.backup.regionserver. > >> > LogRollRegionServerProcedureMa > >> > >>>> nager > >> > >>>> > >> > >>>> > >> > >>>> I would like to thank IBM team and Jerry He for original work, > >> > >>>> > >> > >>>> Enis, Ted, Stack, Matteo, Jerry for time spent on code reviews > >> > >>>> > >> > >>>> Special thanks to Ted Yu for his co-development work. > >> > >>>> > >> > >>>> References: > >> > >>>> > >> > >>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-7912 (original IBM, > >> > >> contains > >> > >>>> design doc) > >> > >>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-14030 (Phase 1) > >> > >>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-14123 (Phase 2) > >> > >>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-14414 (Phase 3) > >> > >>>> > >> > >>>> Please vote +1/-1 by midnight Pacific Time (00:00 > >> > >>>> -0800 GMT) on March 11th ​on whether or not we should merge this > >> into > >> > >> the > >> > >>>> current master. > >> > >>>> > >> > >>>> -Vladimir Rodionov > >> > >>>> > >> > >>> > >> > >>> > >> > >>> > >> > >>> -- > >> > >>> Best regards, > >> > >>> > >> > >>> - Andy > >> > >>> > >> > >>> If you are given a choice, you believe you have acted freely. - > >> Raymond > >> > >>> Teller (via Peter Watts) > >> > >> > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > -- > >> > > Best regards, > >> > > > >> > > - Andy > >> > > > >> > > If you are given a choice, you believe you have acted freely. - > >> Raymond > >> > > Teller (via Peter Watts) > >> > > >> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> Best regards, > >> > >> - Andy > >> > >> If you are given a choice, you believe you have acted freely. - Raymond > >> Teller (via Peter Watts) > >> > > > > >
