>> It ignores the feedback If I "ignore" feedback, I put my comment - why? I am always open for further discussions. If reviewer does not insist on a particular request - it will be dropped. I think it is fair.
>> he list is incomplete because a bunch of >> follow-ons came of the review cycle (including moving backup/restore out of >> core to live in its own module). For those who were not following our lengthy conversation on a review board, separation of a backup code into a separate module has been done last year, but has been reverted back by request of a reviewer. -Vladimir On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 2:23 PM, Stack <st...@duboce.net> wrote: > On Fri, Mar 10, 2017 at 9:09 PM, Stack <st...@duboce.net> wrote: > > > 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 > > > > > > > To be more explicit, this patch was developed on a branch and then a bunch > of dev resources were burned getting it into a state where it could be > merged to master. Going back to a branch to bulk up the merge so it > includes more JIRAs than the many it already incorporates is the wrong > direction for us to be headed in. It ignores the feedback given and the > work done by Vladimir slimming down an already over-broad scope. It is also > predicated on abundant review and testing resource being on tap to cycle on > a feature that is useful, but non-core. > > The patch is ready for merge IMO. Geoffrey makes a nice list of what is > still to do though IIRC, the list is incomplete because a bunch of > follow-ons came of the review cycle (including moving backup/restore out of > core to live in its own module). > > The patch needs three votes to merge. I am not against merge but I am not > voting for the patch because I do have any more time to spend on this > non-core feature and feel that a vote will have me assume a responsibility > I will not shirk. > > S > > > > > > > > > > >> 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) > >> >> > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > >
