Thanks. Lei, can we apply this to 0.6.x branch before cutting the release.

On Mon, Oct 24, 2016 at 10:01 AM, Michael Craig <[email protected]> wrote:

> Found it: https://github.com/apache/helix/commit/
> dc9f129b67f8cacdf0cd22288f166b56fc5654a0
>
> This commit was not ported to the 0.6.x line. Here is the original JIRA
> issue: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HELIX-543
>
> On Fri, Oct 21, 2016 at 5:08 PM, Michael Craig <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> I'm not sure. The diff between 0.6.6 and master is enormous :(
>> https://github.com/apache/helix/compare/helix-0.6.6...master
>>
>> On Fri, Oct 21, 2016 at 4:30 PM, kishore g <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> Will take a look at it. Do you know what's the difference between master
>>> and 0.6.6 tag. We can pull that change into 0.6.6
>>>
>>> On Oct 21, 2016 4:10 PM, "Michael Craig" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Ok. I tried the helix-0.6.6 tag from GH and found the issue is still
>>>> present:
>>>>
>>>> https://gist.github.com/mkscrg/628ab964995c0be914d44654d26ae
>>>> 561/5af298a63c6796d4f087bc345179ae1fd5aabc33
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, Oct 21, 2016 at 3:22 PM, kishore g <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Yes it should be fixed in 0.6.6. Lei is working on the release.
>>>>>
>>>>> On Oct 21, 2016 1:52 PM, "Michael Craig" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> (This came up in a prior thread—moving it out to clarify it from that
>>>>>> other question.)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> With helix-0.6.5, FULL_AUTO rebalancing seems too aggressive when
>>>>>> nodes reconnect to the cluster. For example, with 2 nodes + 1 resource (1
>>>>>> replica, 1 partition) + OnlineOffline: https://gist.gi
>>>>>> thub.com/mkscrg/628ab964995c0be914d44654d26ae561/99348c870e9
>>>>>> f028048c1d1cfdd15976325f293f9
>>>>>>
>>>>>> However, this seems to be fixed at the current master branch on
>>>>>> GitHub: https://gist.github.com/mkscrg/628ab964995c0be914d44
>>>>>> 654d26ae561/ec26a64a74b50c8c125ccd1f9bde1d8aa848a0b5
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Will this fix be released in an 0.6.x version?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>
>

Reply via email to