0.95 and 0.96 remaining issues

[Enis Söztutar <en...@hortonworks.com>]

Hi devs,

We(HWX) had some discussions with Stack this morning about the eventual
0.96 release, and 0.95 stuff. Having 0.96 out sooner rather than later is
becoming crucial as time passes. We've talked about some of the significant
work items, and what areas to focus on.

Some of the notes are:

 - HBASE-8015. Support for Namespaces (Francis owns it, and the patch looks
mostly done. We should get this in since this is the singularity)
 - HBASE-7999 Add 'system' tables (this may turn into just adding a system
namespace, and be done with it. Depends on HBASE-8015. )
 - HBASE-8093. Change the META name (can be done together as a part of
HBASE-8015, HBASE-7999)
 - HBASE-3787 Increment is non-idempotent but client retries RPC. Nonce
issue (idempotent) -> critical, Enis or Sergey will work on this.
 - Tarball, maven -> Enis, Giri, Nick, Stack
 - Jeffrey's log replay patch (It allows 2sec recovery for accepting writes
for regions. We can get this in disabled by default, and keep both
distributed log splitting, and log replay. In 96, we can make it rock solid
afterwards)
 - Region locality fixes hbase-7932/7942 (Devaraj says that he was able to
convince the hdfs guys to accept the patch.)
 - IPC review (DD, Stack)
 - Cell stuff review
 - Cell support in Filters etc. -> These are important but no blockers,
maybe we can defer them to 1.0.
 - HBASE-7897 Add support for tags to Cell Interface
 - MTTR -> non blocker. The more we have the better
 - Formal hadoop2 support -> DD, Ted, Nick, hadoop-2.0.4-alpha issue.
 - prefix-tree module, storage module, mapred? -> Enis push for decision
here.
 - HBASE-7704. migration tool that checks presence of HFile V1 files.
(Stack)
 - Snapshots, any work left? -> Ted will review
 - HBASE-8045. Fix .META. migration after HBASE-3171 (Stack)
 - IO fencing, write compactions to hlog (Stack spend some time on this,
pretty important)
 - Unit test fixes
 - How are we going to test this

Kudos to Stack for driving the first RC for 0.95. He says that he wants to
do 2-week release cycles, and at some point, we can just label 0.95.x as
the 0.96.0 release.

We'll also go over the issues and re-kindle the discussions, re-assign,
bump to 0.95.1 etc.

Most of these have been discussed in the issues, or elsewhere, but we would
love your input/help on these. Any more issues, that should be/should not
be blockers for 0.96? Any issues that has to go with the singularity?

Enis

Re: 0.95 and 0.96 remaining issues

[Ted Yu <yu...@gmail.com>]

This should also be in the list:
HBASE-6870 HTable#coprocessorExec always scan the whole table


On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 5:59 PM, Enis Söztutar <en...@hortonworks.com> wrote:

> Hi devs,
>
> We(HWX) had some discussions with Stack this morning about the eventual
> 0.96 release, and 0.95 stuff. Having 0.96 out sooner rather than later is
> becoming crucial as time passes. We've talked about some of the significant
> work items, and what areas to focus on.
>
> Some of the notes are:
>
>  - HBASE-8015. Support for Namespaces (Francis owns it, and the patch looks
> mostly done. We should get this in since this is the singularity)
>  - HBASE-7999 Add 'system' tables (this may turn into just adding a system
> namespace, and be done with it. Depends on HBASE-8015. )
>  - HBASE-8093. Change the META name (can be done together as a part of
> HBASE-8015, HBASE-7999)
>  - HBASE-3787 Increment is non-idempotent but client retries RPC. Nonce
> issue (idempotent) -> critical, Enis or Sergey will work on this.
>  - Tarball, maven -> Enis, Giri, Nick, Stack
>  - Jeffrey's log replay patch (It allows 2sec recovery for accepting writes
> for regions. We can get this in disabled by default, and keep both
> distributed log splitting, and log replay. In 96, we can make it rock solid
> afterwards)
>  - Region locality fixes hbase-7932/7942 (Devaraj says that he was able to
> convince the hdfs guys to accept the patch.)
>  - IPC review (DD, Stack)
>  - Cell stuff review
>  - Cell support in Filters etc. -> These are important but no blockers,
> maybe we can defer them to 1.0.
>  - HBASE-7897 Add support for tags to Cell Interface
>  - MTTR -> non blocker. The more we have the better
>  - Formal hadoop2 support -> DD, Ted, Nick, hadoop-2.0.4-alpha issue.
>  - prefix-tree module, storage module, mapred? -> Enis push for decision
> here.
>  - HBASE-7704. migration tool that checks presence of HFile V1 files.
> (Stack)
>  - Snapshots, any work left? -> Ted will review
>  - HBASE-8045. Fix .META. migration after HBASE-3171 (Stack)
>  - IO fencing, write compactions to hlog (Stack spend some time on this,
> pretty important)
>  - Unit test fixes
>  - How are we going to test this
>
> Kudos to Stack for driving the first RC for 0.95. He says that he wants to
> do 2-week release cycles, and at some point, we can just label 0.95.x as
> the 0.96.0 release.
>
> We'll also go over the issues and re-kindle the discussions, re-assign,
> bump to 0.95.1 etc.
>
> Most of these have been discussed in the issues, or elsewhere, but we would
> love your input/help on these. Any more issues, that should be/should not
> be blockers for 0.96? Any issues that has to go with the singularity?
>
> Enis
>

Re: 0.95 and 0.96 remaining issues

[Stack <st...@duboce.net>]

On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 5:59 PM, Enis Söztutar <en...@hortonworks.com> wrote:

> Hi devs,
>
> We(HWX) had some discussions with Stack this morning about the eventual
> 0.96 release, and 0.95 stuff. Having 0.96 out sooner rather than later is
> becoming crucial as time passes. We've talked about some of the significant
> work items, and what areas to focus on.
>
>
Thanks for doing the writeup Enis.  I appreciate your suggesting more focus
on 0.95/0.96.



> Some of the notes are:
>
>  - HBASE-8015. Support for Namespaces (Francis owns it, and the patch looks
> mostly done. We should get this in since this is the singularity)
>  - HBASE-7999 Add 'system' tables (this may turn into just adding a system
> namespace, and be done with it. Depends on HBASE-8015. )
>  - HBASE-8093. Change the META name (can be done together as a part of
> HBASE-8015, HBASE-7999)
>

That would be coolio.  Sooner rather than later I'd say.



>  - HBASE-3787 Increment is non-idempotent but client retries RPC. Nonce
> issue (idempotent) -> critical, Enis or Sergey will work on this.
>  - Tarball, maven -> Enis, Giri, Nick, Stack
>  - Jeffrey's log replay patch (It allows 2sec recovery for accepting writes
> for regions. We can get this in disabled by default, and keep both
> distributed log splitting, and log replay. In 96, we can make it rock solid
> afterwards)
>  - Region locality fixes hbase-7932/7942 (Devaraj says that he was able to
> convince the hdfs guys to accept the patch.)
>  - IPC review (DD, Stack)
>  - Cell stuff review

 - Cell support in Filters etc. -> These are important but no blockers,
> maybe we can defer them to 1.0.
>  - HBASE-7897 Add support for tags to Cell Interface
>  - MTTR -> non blocker. The more we have the better
>  - Formal hadoop2 support -> DD, Ted, Nick, hadoop-2.0.4-alpha issue.
>  - prefix-tree module, storage module, mapred? -> Enis push for decision
> here.
>  - HBASE-7704. migration tool that checks presence of HFile V1 files.
> (Stack)
>  - Snapshots, any work left? -> Ted will review
>  - HBASE-8045. Fix .META. migration after HBASE-3171 (Stack)
>  - IO fencing, write compactions to hlog (Stack spend some time on this,
> pretty important)
>  - Unit test fixes
>  - How are we going to test this
>
> ...

> We'll also go over the issues and re-kindle the discussions, re-assign,
> bump to 0.95.1 etc.
>
>
I'm making a trawl through now.   Will just bump any w/o owners and where
there has been no movement lately.

Thanks again for the write up Enis,
St.Ack

Re: 0.95 and 0.96 remaining issues

[Stack <st...@duboce.net>]

+1 on flakey category.  I like it.


On Wed, Apr 3, 2013 at 11:10 AM, Jimmy Xiang <jx...@cloudera.com> wrote:

> +1 on flaky category.  I filed HBASE-8256 to work on it.  For those flaky
> tests, we can have a separate Jenkin build for it.
>
> Thanks,
> Jimmy
>
> On Wed, Apr 3, 2013 at 7:53 AM, Andrew Purtell <ap...@apache.org>
> wrote:
>
> > I only suggest a category to toggle on or off for flaky tests. Let's just
> > discuss that first. That seems easy to set up. Then we don't have to
> commit
> > changes just to run them on Jenkins.
> >
> > The point here seems to be segregate flaky tests and fix them, not leave
> > them in a broken state, nor introduce weird "pass once in a while" new
> > criteria.
> >
> > On Wednesday, April 3, 2013, Ted Yu wrote:
> >
> > > Jean-Marc's idea is interesting.
> > > The tests in this 'flaky' category should succeed, say, once in 5
> > > consecutive builds.
> > > If particular test fails consistently after a checkin, we should
> > > investigate further.
> > >
> > >
> > > On Wed, Apr 3, 2013 at 4:38 AM, Jean-Marc Spaggiari <
> > > jean-marc@spaggiari.org <javascript:;>
> > > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Or even always have them running in this new category but if one of
> > > > them fails,not tag the build as a fail? That way we can continue to
> > > > keep an eye on them but they are not turning the builds red?
> > > >
> > > > 2013/4/3 Andrew Purtell <apurtell@apache.org <javascript:;>>:
> > > > > Could we introduce a junit category for flakey tests such that they
> > > don't
> > > > > run unless we activate them with some flag to maven?
> > > > >
> > > > > On Tuesday, April 2, 2013, Stack wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >> On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 6:20 PM, Andrew Purtell <
> apurtell@apache.org
> > <javascript:;>
> > > > <javascript:;>>
> > > > >> wrote:
> > > > >>
> > > > >> > > - HBASE-7897 Add support for tags to Cell Interface
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > I think one of us over here could pick this up, let me ask.
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > > - Unit test fixes
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > I have some stuff due by the 12th. After that I aim for green
> > trunk
> > > > and
> > > > >> > 0.94 builds on 54.241.6.143, including the Hadoop 2 ones. Will
> put
> > > on
> > > > my
> > > > >> > hip boots.
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> I like Jimmy's suggestion from another thread where we just back
> out
> > > all
> > > > >> flakey tests and roll them in one at a time into a build that is
> > > usually
> > > > >> blue rather than always red so we can figure which tests and code
> > > > >> destabilize.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> St.Ack
> > > > >>
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > 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)
> >
>

Re: 0.95 and 0.96 remaining issues

[Jimmy Xiang <jx...@cloudera.com>]

+1 on flaky category.  I filed HBASE-8256 to work on it.  For those flaky
tests, we can have a separate Jenkin build for it.

Thanks,
Jimmy

On Wed, Apr 3, 2013 at 7:53 AM, Andrew Purtell <ap...@apache.org> wrote:

> I only suggest a category to toggle on or off for flaky tests. Let's just
> discuss that first. That seems easy to set up. Then we don't have to commit
> changes just to run them on Jenkins.
>
> The point here seems to be segregate flaky tests and fix them, not leave
> them in a broken state, nor introduce weird "pass once in a while" new
> criteria.
>
> On Wednesday, April 3, 2013, Ted Yu wrote:
>
> > Jean-Marc's idea is interesting.
> > The tests in this 'flaky' category should succeed, say, once in 5
> > consecutive builds.
> > If particular test fails consistently after a checkin, we should
> > investigate further.
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Apr 3, 2013 at 4:38 AM, Jean-Marc Spaggiari <
> > jean-marc@spaggiari.org <javascript:;>
> > > wrote:
> >
> > > Or even always have them running in this new category but if one of
> > > them fails,not tag the build as a fail? That way we can continue to
> > > keep an eye on them but they are not turning the builds red?
> > >
> > > 2013/4/3 Andrew Purtell <apurtell@apache.org <javascript:;>>:
> > > > Could we introduce a junit category for flakey tests such that they
> > don't
> > > > run unless we activate them with some flag to maven?
> > > >
> > > > On Tuesday, April 2, 2013, Stack wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 6:20 PM, Andrew Purtell <apurtell@apache.org
> <javascript:;>
> > > <javascript:;>>
> > > >> wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> > > - HBASE-7897 Add support for tags to Cell Interface
> > > >> >
> > > >> > I think one of us over here could pick this up, let me ask.
> > > >> >
> > > >> > > - Unit test fixes
> > > >> >
> > > >> > I have some stuff due by the 12th. After that I aim for green
> trunk
> > > and
> > > >> > 0.94 builds on 54.241.6.143, including the Hadoop 2 ones. Will put
> > on
> > > my
> > > >> > hip boots.
> > > >> >
> > > >> >
> > > >> I like Jimmy's suggestion from another thread where we just back out
> > all
> > > >> flakey tests and roll them in one at a time into a build that is
> > usually
> > > >> blue rather than always red so we can figure which tests and code
> > > >> destabilize.
> > > >>
> > > >> St.Ack
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > 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)
>

Re: 0.95 and 0.96 remaining issues

[Andrew Purtell <ap...@apache.org>]

I only suggest a category to toggle on or off for flaky tests. Let's just
discuss that first. That seems easy to set up. Then we don't have to commit
changes just to run them on Jenkins.

The point here seems to be segregate flaky tests and fix them, not leave
them in a broken state, nor introduce weird "pass once in a while" new
criteria.

On Wednesday, April 3, 2013, Ted Yu wrote:

> Jean-Marc's idea is interesting.
> The tests in this 'flaky' category should succeed, say, once in 5
> consecutive builds.
> If particular test fails consistently after a checkin, we should
> investigate further.
>
>
> On Wed, Apr 3, 2013 at 4:38 AM, Jean-Marc Spaggiari <
> jean-marc@spaggiari.org <javascript:;>
> > wrote:
>
> > Or even always have them running in this new category but if one of
> > them fails,not tag the build as a fail? That way we can continue to
> > keep an eye on them but they are not turning the builds red?
> >
> > 2013/4/3 Andrew Purtell <apurtell@apache.org <javascript:;>>:
> > > Could we introduce a junit category for flakey tests such that they
> don't
> > > run unless we activate them with some flag to maven?
> > >
> > > On Tuesday, April 2, 2013, Stack wrote:
> > >
> > >> On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 6:20 PM, Andrew Purtell <apurtell@apache.org<javascript:;>
> > <javascript:;>>
> > >> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> > > - HBASE-7897 Add support for tags to Cell Interface
> > >> >
> > >> > I think one of us over here could pick this up, let me ask.
> > >> >
> > >> > > - Unit test fixes
> > >> >
> > >> > I have some stuff due by the 12th. After that I aim for green trunk
> > and
> > >> > 0.94 builds on 54.241.6.143, including the Hadoop 2 ones. Will put
> on
> > my
> > >> > hip boots.
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> I like Jimmy's suggestion from another thread where we just back out
> all
> > >> flakey tests and roll them in one at a time into a build that is
> usually
> > >> blue rather than always red so we can figure which tests and code
> > >> destabilize.
> > >>
> > >> St.Ack
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > 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)

Re: 0.95 and 0.96 remaining issues

[Ted Yu <yu...@gmail.com>]

Jean-Marc's idea is interesting.
The tests in this 'flaky' category should succeed, say, once in 5
consecutive builds.
If particular test fails consistently after a checkin, we should
investigate further.


On Wed, Apr 3, 2013 at 4:38 AM, Jean-Marc Spaggiari <jean-marc@spaggiari.org
> wrote:

> Or even always have them running in this new category but if one of
> them fails,not tag the build as a fail? That way we can continue to
> keep an eye on them but they are not turning the builds red?
>
> 2013/4/3 Andrew Purtell <ap...@apache.org>:
> > Could we introduce a junit category for flakey tests such that they don't
> > run unless we activate them with some flag to maven?
> >
> > On Tuesday, April 2, 2013, Stack wrote:
> >
> >> On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 6:20 PM, Andrew Purtell <apurtell@apache.org
> <javascript:;>>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> > > - HBASE-7897 Add support for tags to Cell Interface
> >> >
> >> > I think one of us over here could pick this up, let me ask.
> >> >
> >> > > - Unit test fixes
> >> >
> >> > I have some stuff due by the 12th. After that I aim for green trunk
> and
> >> > 0.94 builds on 54.241.6.143, including the Hadoop 2 ones. Will put on
> my
> >> > hip boots.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> I like Jimmy's suggestion from another thread where we just back out all
> >> flakey tests and roll them in one at a time into a build that is usually
> >> blue rather than always red so we can figure which tests and code
> >> destabilize.
> >>
> >> St.Ack
> >>
> >
> >
> > --
> > Best regards,
> >
> >    - Andy
> >
> > Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet Hein
> > (via Tom White)
>

Re: 0.95 and 0.96 remaining issues

[Jean-Marc Spaggiari <je...@spaggiari.org>]

Or even always have them running in this new category but if one of
them fails,not tag the build as a fail? That way we can continue to
keep an eye on them but they are not turning the builds red?

2013/4/3 Andrew Purtell <ap...@apache.org>:
> Could we introduce a junit category for flakey tests such that they don't
> run unless we activate them with some flag to maven?
>
> On Tuesday, April 2, 2013, Stack wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 6:20 PM, Andrew Purtell <apurtell@apache.org<javascript:;>>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > > - HBASE-7897 Add support for tags to Cell Interface
>> >
>> > I think one of us over here could pick this up, let me ask.
>> >
>> > > - Unit test fixes
>> >
>> > I have some stuff due by the 12th. After that I aim for green trunk and
>> > 0.94 builds on 54.241.6.143, including the Hadoop 2 ones. Will put on my
>> > hip boots.
>> >
>> >
>> I like Jimmy's suggestion from another thread where we just back out all
>> flakey tests and roll them in one at a time into a build that is usually
>> blue rather than always red so we can figure which tests and code
>> destabilize.
>>
>> St.Ack
>>
>
>
> --
> Best regards,
>
>    - Andy
>
> Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet Hein
> (via Tom White)

Re: 0.95 and 0.96 remaining issues

[Andrew Purtell <ap...@apache.org>]

Could we introduce a junit category for flakey tests such that they don't
run unless we activate them with some flag to maven?

On Tuesday, April 2, 2013, Stack wrote:

> On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 6:20 PM, Andrew Purtell <apurtell@apache.org<javascript:;>>
> wrote:
>
> > > - HBASE-7897 Add support for tags to Cell Interface
> >
> > I think one of us over here could pick this up, let me ask.
> >
> > > - Unit test fixes
> >
> > I have some stuff due by the 12th. After that I aim for green trunk and
> > 0.94 builds on 54.241.6.143, including the Hadoop 2 ones. Will put on my
> > hip boots.
> >
> >
> I like Jimmy's suggestion from another thread where we just back out all
> flakey tests and roll them in one at a time into a build that is usually
> blue rather than always red so we can figure which tests and code
> destabilize.
>
> St.Ack
>


-- 
Best regards,

   - Andy

Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet Hein
(via Tom White)

Re: 0.95 and 0.96 remaining issues

[Stack <st...@duboce.net>]

On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 6:20 PM, Andrew Purtell <ap...@apache.org> wrote:

> > - HBASE-7897 Add support for tags to Cell Interface
>
> I think one of us over here could pick this up, let me ask.
>
> > - Unit test fixes
>
> I have some stuff due by the 12th. After that I aim for green trunk and
> 0.94 builds on 54.241.6.143, including the Hadoop 2 ones. Will put on my
> hip boots.
>
>
I like Jimmy's suggestion from another thread where we just back out all
flakey tests and roll them in one at a time into a build that is usually
blue rather than always red so we can figure which tests and code
destabilize.

St.Ack

Re: 0.95 and 0.96 remaining issues

[Enis Söztutar <en...@gmail.com>]

Thanks Andrew. Both are pretty important for 0.96.

Enis


On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 6:20 PM, Andrew Purtell <ap...@apache.org> wrote:

> > - HBASE-7897 Add support for tags to Cell Interface
>
> I think one of us over here could pick this up, let me ask.
>
> > - Unit test fixes
>
> I have some stuff due by the 12th. After that I aim for green trunk and
> 0.94 builds on 54.241.6.143, including the Hadoop 2 ones. Will put on my
> hip boots.
>
>
> On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 5:59 PM, Enis Söztutar <en...@hortonworks.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Hi devs,
> >
> > We(HWX) had some discussions with Stack this morning about the eventual
> > 0.96 release, and 0.95 stuff. Having 0.96 out sooner rather than later is
> > becoming crucial as time passes. We've talked about some of the
> significant
> > work items, and what areas to focus on.
> >
> > Some of the notes are:
> >
> >  - HBASE-8015. Support for Namespaces (Francis owns it, and the patch
> looks
> > mostly done. We should get this in since this is the singularity)
> >  - HBASE-7999 Add 'system' tables (this may turn into just adding a
> system
> > namespace, and be done with it. Depends on HBASE-8015. )
> >  - HBASE-8093. Change the META name (can be done together as a part of
> > HBASE-8015, HBASE-7999)
> >  - HBASE-3787 Increment is non-idempotent but client retries RPC. Nonce
> > issue (idempotent) -> critical, Enis or Sergey will work on this.
> >  - Tarball, maven -> Enis, Giri, Nick, Stack
> >  - Jeffrey's log replay patch (It allows 2sec recovery for accepting
> writes
> > for regions. We can get this in disabled by default, and keep both
> > distributed log splitting, and log replay. In 96, we can make it rock
> solid
> > afterwards)
> >  - Region locality fixes hbase-7932/7942 (Devaraj says that he was able
> to
> > convince the hdfs guys to accept the patch.)
> >  - IPC review (DD, Stack)
> >  - Cell stuff review
> >  - Cell support in Filters etc. -> These are important but no blockers,
> > maybe we can defer them to 1.0.
> >  - HBASE-7897 Add support for tags to Cell Interface
> >  - MTTR -> non blocker. The more we have the better
> >  - Formal hadoop2 support -> DD, Ted, Nick, hadoop-2.0.4-alpha issue.
> >  - prefix-tree module, storage module, mapred? -> Enis push for decision
> > here.
> >  - HBASE-7704. migration tool that checks presence of HFile V1 files.
> > (Stack)
> >  - Snapshots, any work left? -> Ted will review
> >  - HBASE-8045. Fix .META. migration after HBASE-3171 (Stack)
> >  - IO fencing, write compactions to hlog (Stack spend some time on this,
> > pretty important)
> >  - Unit test fixes
> >  - How are we going to test this
> >
> > Kudos to Stack for driving the first RC for 0.95. He says that he wants
> to
> > do 2-week release cycles, and at some point, we can just label 0.95.x as
> > the 0.96.0 release.
> >
> > We'll also go over the issues and re-kindle the discussions, re-assign,
> > bump to 0.95.1 etc.
> >
> > Most of these have been discussed in the issues, or elsewhere, but we
> would
> > love your input/help on these. Any more issues, that should be/should not
> > be blockers for 0.96? Any issues that has to go with the singularity?
> >
> > Enis
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Best regards,
>
>    - Andy
>
> Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet Hein
> (via Tom White)
>

Re: 0.95 and 0.96 remaining issues

[Andrew Purtell <ap...@apache.org>]

> - HBASE-7897 Add support for tags to Cell Interface

I think one of us over here could pick this up, let me ask.

> - Unit test fixes

I have some stuff due by the 12th. After that I aim for green trunk and
0.94 builds on 54.241.6.143, including the Hadoop 2 ones. Will put on my
hip boots.


On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 5:59 PM, Enis Söztutar <en...@hortonworks.com> wrote:

> Hi devs,
>
> We(HWX) had some discussions with Stack this morning about the eventual
> 0.96 release, and 0.95 stuff. Having 0.96 out sooner rather than later is
> becoming crucial as time passes. We've talked about some of the significant
> work items, and what areas to focus on.
>
> Some of the notes are:
>
>  - HBASE-8015. Support for Namespaces (Francis owns it, and the patch looks
> mostly done. We should get this in since this is the singularity)
>  - HBASE-7999 Add 'system' tables (this may turn into just adding a system
> namespace, and be done with it. Depends on HBASE-8015. )
>  - HBASE-8093. Change the META name (can be done together as a part of
> HBASE-8015, HBASE-7999)
>  - HBASE-3787 Increment is non-idempotent but client retries RPC. Nonce
> issue (idempotent) -> critical, Enis or Sergey will work on this.
>  - Tarball, maven -> Enis, Giri, Nick, Stack
>  - Jeffrey's log replay patch (It allows 2sec recovery for accepting writes
> for regions. We can get this in disabled by default, and keep both
> distributed log splitting, and log replay. In 96, we can make it rock solid
> afterwards)
>  - Region locality fixes hbase-7932/7942 (Devaraj says that he was able to
> convince the hdfs guys to accept the patch.)
>  - IPC review (DD, Stack)
>  - Cell stuff review
>  - Cell support in Filters etc. -> These are important but no blockers,
> maybe we can defer them to 1.0.
>  - HBASE-7897 Add support for tags to Cell Interface
>  - MTTR -> non blocker. The more we have the better
>  - Formal hadoop2 support -> DD, Ted, Nick, hadoop-2.0.4-alpha issue.
>  - prefix-tree module, storage module, mapred? -> Enis push for decision
> here.
>  - HBASE-7704. migration tool that checks presence of HFile V1 files.
> (Stack)
>  - Snapshots, any work left? -> Ted will review
>  - HBASE-8045. Fix .META. migration after HBASE-3171 (Stack)
>  - IO fencing, write compactions to hlog (Stack spend some time on this,
> pretty important)
>  - Unit test fixes
>  - How are we going to test this
>
> Kudos to Stack for driving the first RC for 0.95. He says that he wants to
> do 2-week release cycles, and at some point, we can just label 0.95.x as
> the 0.96.0 release.
>
> We'll also go over the issues and re-kindle the discussions, re-assign,
> bump to 0.95.1 etc.
>
> Most of these have been discussed in the issues, or elsewhere, but we would
> love your input/help on these. Any more issues, that should be/should not
> be blockers for 0.96? Any issues that has to go with the singularity?
>
> Enis
>



-- 
Best regards,

   - Andy

Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet Hein
(via Tom White)