+1 IMO, go for it -- enough eyes have been had on the last little bit.
On 10/24/17 11:05 PM, stack wrote:
The boys are almost ready to merge. They were going to run a VOTE. I told
them not to bother. There is enough support behind the merge they don't
need a vote IMO. If you think otherwise, speak up.
Thanks,
St.Ack
P.S. Release note on HBASE-18410 will have summary of changes that come in
on the merge. Thanks.
On Sat, Oct 21, 2017 at 6:37 PM, stack <saint....@gmail.com> wrote:
+1 on merge then sorting out the mess. I want to include this stuff in
alpha 4.
Thanks,
S
On Oct 20, 2017 01:18, "OpenInx" <open...@gmail.com> wrote:
Fine, I opened jira HBASE-19057 for it.
On Fri, Oct 20, 2017 at 4:13 PM, Anoop John <anoop.hb...@gmail.com>
wrote:
+1 for opening an issue and handle the merge as part of that.
I did a review of the new classes for the FilterList impl.. Great
cleanup work. Very easy to read and understand the code now..
Have few comments specially on FilterListWithOR. If u can raise a
merge issue, can comment down that. If needed can open up subtasks
can then handle.
-Anoop-
On Fri, Oct 20, 2017 at 12:01 PM, 张铎(Duo Zhang) <palomino...@gmail.com>
wrote:
Open a issue to track the merging work? Let's do a rebase and more
testing
in that issue. And then come back and open a vote.
2017-10-20 11:48 GMT+08:00 OpenInx <open...@gmail.com>:
I believe there are several UTs which we want them to be the
guard of
merging?
What is the situation of these UTs?
The UT is TestFilterListOnMini which make sure the filter list with
family
filter in it works fine, it's enable in branch HBASE-18410 now .
see
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-18977.
Some of recent patches, such as HBASE-18368-HBASE-18410.v2.patch,
didn't get
proper QA run
All of the UT passed except one failed case , and this failed case is
unrelated. see
https://builds.apache.org/job/PreCommit-HBASE-Build/9157/testReport/
This is a incompatible change for filter developer ?
Yes, I think so.
On Fri, Oct 20, 2017 at 9:37 AM, Guanghao Zhang <zghao...@gmail.com>
wrote:
HBASE-18368-HBASE-18410.v2.patch got a proper QA
run: PreCommit-HBASE-Build/9157. And the failed ut is not related.
So
I
committed it to branch HBASE-18410...
HBASE-18368 changed the javadoc of NEXT_ROW. This is a incompatible
change
for filter developer?
2017-10-20 9:14 GMT+08:00 Ted Yu <yuzhih...@gmail.com>:
Some of recent patches, such as HBASE-18368-HBASE-18410.v2.pat
ch,
didn't
get proper QA run (due to precommit disruption).
We'd better get several good QA runs.
Cheers
On Thu, Oct 19, 2017 at 5:38 PM, 张铎(Duo Zhang) <
palomino...@gmail.com>
wrote:
I believe there are several UTs which we want them to be the
guard of
merging? What is the situation of these UTs?
Thanks.
2017-10-20 8:33 GMT+08:00 OpenInx <open...@gmail.com>:
Hi All :
All subtasks have been resolved except HBASE-18993
<https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-18993>, I think
it's
time
to
merge HBASE-18410 <https://issues.apache.org/
jira/browse/HBASE-18410
branch
to master now.
Any concerns ?
Thanks.
--
==============================
Openinx blog : http://openinx.github.io
TO BE A GREAT HACKER !
==============================
--
==============================
Openinx blog : http://openinx.github.io
TO BE A GREAT HACKER !
==============================
