Re: Branch for 1.3

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

Mikhail:
Any plan when to spin 1.3 RC0 ?

HBaseCon is not very far.

I was wondering if 1.3 release can be done before HBaseCon.

Cheers

On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 12:54 PM, Mikhail Antonov <an...@apache.org>
wrote:

> To me it's not really about individual big features (besides, big features
> might be hard to accommodate in a minor release), but enough good things to
> justify minor release.
>
> What we can have (unless I'm missing something):
>
> [Already done or to be further improved]
>  - HBASE-15177 - more GC-friendly allocations in RPC services
>  - HBASE-14457 - multi WAL improvements
>  - HBASE-15222 - optimizations in metrics system, some more metrics
> (like HBASE-15135, HBASE-15068)
>  - HBASE-15306, HBASE-15136 - improving call queues handling
>
> [To be reviewed?):
>  - HBASE-15181 - date based tiered compactions (?)
>  - HBASE-11290 - unlock RegionStates. There was a patch update relatively
> recently to it based on comments.
>
> [Possible?]
>  - HBASE-13557 - special handling for system tables WALs
>  - HBASE-13017 - keep table state in meta
>
> 1.2 was cut off mid-June 2015.. Should be enough time since then for a
> minor release.
>
> Mikhail
>
> On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 10:56 AM, Enis Söztutar <en...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > What are the "features" in current branch-1 that is not there in 1.2? If
> > there is none, it is not worth branching yet.
> >
> > Enis
> >
> > On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 7:57 PM, Andrew Purtell <
> andrew.purtell@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > No, each 0.94.x/0.96.x/98.x was or is a minor release. :-) Sometimes
> the
> > > changes in those releases could all be considered "point" in scope or
> > > effect but not always. Further supporting this point of view, when we
> > went
> > > from 0.94 to 0.96 it was a major increment, in effect, due to 'the
> > > singularity'.
> > >
> > > Doing a new minor every month would be more like a return to past state
> > of
> > > affairs, for better or worse, in my humble opinion.
> > >
> > > > On Feb 24, 2016, at 7:46 PM, Stack <st...@duboce.net> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 11:50 AM, Elliott Clark <ec...@apache.org>
> > > wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> Is it time to branch for 1.3 ?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >> Sean did a great job getting 1.2 out. However it was a hard
> difficult
> > > >> process that I wouldn't wish on anyone. Is it time to branch for 1.3
> > and
> > > >> start the process of stabilizing again so that we can get a monthly
> > > cadence
> > > >> for minor releases going?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Monthly cadence for minors is upping the ante. We used to be about
> > > > monthly's for point releases.
> > > >
> > > > +1 for the mighty Mikhail as RM. Sean, please UPS him the special
> robe
> > > that
> > > > he has to wear while performing his RMness duties.
> > > >
> > > > St.Ack
> > >
> >
>

Re: Branch for 1.3

[Dima Spivak <ds...@cloudera.com>]

Yeah, let me get a few machines going tomorrow and script something
together that uses git bisect along with clusterdock to stand up clusters
and run ITBLL. In the meantime, should we open a bug to address why the
test doesn't fail even when nodes are dropped from other CFs?

-Dima

On Wednesday, June 22, 2016, Ted Yu <yu...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I think Dima's past work would help narrow down the patch(es) which
> introduced the regression:
>
> http://search-hadoop.com/m/YGbbPH6kn1dKe8j2
>
> A list of JIRAs which went into 1.3 but not 1.2.2 can be obtained.
> The scope of search should be considerably smaller once we have the list.
>
> FYI
>
> On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 3:15 PM, Elliott Clark <eclark@apache.org
> <javascript:;>> wrote:
>
> > So the errors are pretty sparse. We're running in a pretty reasonable
> test
> > cluster and only seeing 300 errors out of 39 billion.
> >
> > I'm going to start things running on two clusters with some logging, if
> > anyone has some other hints around what to look for. Or can get a better
> > repro that would be really helpful.
> >
> > On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 2:21 PM, Dima Spivak <dspivak@cloudera.com
> <javascript:;>> wrote:
> >
> > > Hey Elliott (et al.),
> > >
> > > I don’t have insight into the code that might have gone in to scanners,
> > but
> > > I do have the ability to get clusters with chaos monkeys set up quickly
> > > (and some machines in-house to run them), so I’d be happy to help if
> > > there’s anything I can do.
> > >
> > > -Dima
> > >
> > > On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 12:47 PM, Elliott Clark <eclark@apache.org
> <javascript:;>>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Could use some help in HBASE-16074 if anyone has a cluster that has
> > chaos
> > > > monkey set up. Right now it looks like there is some issue with
> > scanners
> > > > during failures giving corrupt data.
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 12:28 PM, Mikhail Antonov <
> > olorinbant@gmail.com <javascript:;>>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Hi guys,
> > > > >
> > > > > as we're stabilizing branch-1.3 builds and I also need to keep
> > release
> > > > > notes / tag for 1.3 accurate, could you please ping me on jira if
> you
> > > > > commit something to this branch (I read commit log, but it's easy
> to
> > > miss
> > > > > something in there)?
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks!
> > > > > Mikhail
> > > > >
> > > > > On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 3:24 PM, Mikhail Antonov <
> > olorinbant@gmail.com <javascript:;>
> > > >
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Yeah,  branch-1.3 was cut some time ago and for a while most of
> > > commits
> > > > > > going to branch-1 would also go to it, but last few days
> > > > > > I'm trying to let only the following things go in:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >  - criticals and blockers
> > > > > >  - test fixes and other patches stabilizing the branch
> > > > > >  - cherry-picks that were missed earlier.
> > > > > >  - oneliners / doc changes etc
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Appreciate understanding and help :)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > -Mikhail
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 3:07 PM, Enis Söztutar <enis@apache.org
> <javascript:;>>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >> nvm, it is there already.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 3:06 PM, Enis Söztutar <enis@apache.org
> <javascript:;>>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> > Mikhail, I suggest that we create the branch-1.3 now so that
> you
> > > can
> > > > > >> > control what goes in and what not. branch-1 is free for all
> > > usually.
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > Enis
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 9:24 PM, Mikhail Antonov <
> > > > > olorinbant@gmail.com <javascript:;>>
> > > > > >> > wrote:
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> >> Suddenly we had kind of a spike in jiras filed with
> > > fixVersion=1.3
> > > > > last
> > > > > >> >> few
> > > > > >> >> days, and I really want to get it out one of this days, so I
> > want
> > > > to
> > > > > >> just
> > > > > >> >> stabilize it now.
> > > > > >> >>
> > > > > >> >> I kicked some jiras labeled as "major" out of 1.3, and if
> > there's
> > > > > >> >> something
> > > > > >> >> affecting branch-1.3 but not "Blocker" or "Critical" let's
> > target
> > > > it
> > > > > >> for
> > > > > >> >> 1.3.1 and / or 1.4.
> > > > > >> >>
> > > > > >> >> Thanks!
> > > > > >> >> Mikhail
> > > > > >> >>
> > > > > >> >> On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 11:52 AM, Mikhail Antonov <
> > > > > >> olorinbant@gmail.com <javascript:;>>
> > > > > >> >> wrote:
> > > > > >> >>
> > > > > >> >> > I'm not aware of any, and changes made to 1.3 shouldn't
> > render
> > > > 2.4
> > > > > >> >> > unsupportable.
> > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > >> >> > On the second thought, if we want to have to maintain less
> > > minor
> > > > > >> >> releases
> > > > > >> >> > in 1.* line and encourage folks to update,
> > > > > >> >> > we need to keep maintaining those Hadoop versions, yeah.
> > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > >> >> > Let's leave 2.4 as supported.
> > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > >> >> > -Mikhail
> > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > >> >> > On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 7:11 AM, Sean Busbey <
> > > > busbey@cloudera.com <javascript:;>>
> > > > > >> >> wrote:
> > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > >> >> >> On Fri, Jun 10, 2016 at 7:00 PM, Mikhail Antonov <
> > > > > >> olorinbant@gmail.com <javascript:;>
> > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > >> >> >> wrote:
> > > > > >> >> >> >
> > > > > >> >> >> > I'm thinking to move Hadoop 2.4.* from Supported to Not
> > > > Tested,
> > > > > to
> > > > > >> >> kind
> > > > > >> >> >> of
> > > > > >> >> >> > encourage people to move and have less versions to test.
> > How
> > > > > many
> > > > > >> >> people
> > > > > >> >> >> > want to stick with Hadoop 2.4 yet upgrade to HBase 1.3?
> > > > > >> >> >> >
> > > > > >> >> >>
> > > > > >> >> >> Hadoop 2.4 is still considered a "safe bet" stable release
> > for
> > > > > those
> > > > > >> >> >> in LTM mode.
> > > > > >> >> >>
> > > > > >> >> >> Our compatibility guidelines say that we won't force an
> > > > > incompatible
> > > > > >> >> >> dependency
> > > > > >> >> >> upgrade in a minor version. Do we know if Hadoop 2.4 ->
> 2.5
> > > > > includes
> > > > > >> >> any
> > > > > >> >> >> documented incompatibilities?
> > > > > >> >> >>
> > > > > >> >> >> --
> > > > > >> >> >> busbey
> > > > > >> >> >>
> > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > >> >> > --
> > > > > >> >> > Thanks,
> > > > > >> >> > Michael Antonov
> > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > >> >>
> > > > > >> >>
> > > > > >> >>
> > > > > >> >> --
> > > > > >> >> Thanks,
> > > > > >> >> Michael Antonov
> > > > > >> >>
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > Michael Antonov
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > Michael Antonov
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Re: Branch for 1.3

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

I think Dima's past work would help narrow down the patch(es) which
introduced the regression:

http://search-hadoop.com/m/YGbbPH6kn1dKe8j2

A list of JIRAs which went into 1.3 but not 1.2.2 can be obtained.
The scope of search should be considerably smaller once we have the list.

FYI

On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 3:15 PM, Elliott Clark <ec...@apache.org> wrote:

> So the errors are pretty sparse. We're running in a pretty reasonable test
> cluster and only seeing 300 errors out of 39 billion.
>
> I'm going to start things running on two clusters with some logging, if
> anyone has some other hints around what to look for. Or can get a better
> repro that would be really helpful.
>
> On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 2:21 PM, Dima Spivak <ds...@cloudera.com> wrote:
>
> > Hey Elliott (et al.),
> >
> > I don’t have insight into the code that might have gone in to scanners,
> but
> > I do have the ability to get clusters with chaos monkeys set up quickly
> > (and some machines in-house to run them), so I’d be happy to help if
> > there’s anything I can do.
> >
> > -Dima
> >
> > On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 12:47 PM, Elliott Clark <ec...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> >
> > > Could use some help in HBASE-16074 if anyone has a cluster that has
> chaos
> > > monkey set up. Right now it looks like there is some issue with
> scanners
> > > during failures giving corrupt data.
> > >
> > > On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 12:28 PM, Mikhail Antonov <
> olorinbant@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi guys,
> > > >
> > > > as we're stabilizing branch-1.3 builds and I also need to keep
> release
> > > > notes / tag for 1.3 accurate, could you please ping me on jira if you
> > > > commit something to this branch (I read commit log, but it's easy to
> > miss
> > > > something in there)?
> > > >
> > > > Thanks!
> > > > Mikhail
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 3:24 PM, Mikhail Antonov <
> olorinbant@gmail.com
> > >
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Yeah,  branch-1.3 was cut some time ago and for a while most of
> > commits
> > > > > going to branch-1 would also go to it, but last few days
> > > > > I'm trying to let only the following things go in:
> > > > >
> > > > >  - criticals and blockers
> > > > >  - test fixes and other patches stabilizing the branch
> > > > >  - cherry-picks that were missed earlier.
> > > > >  - oneliners / doc changes etc
> > > > >
> > > > > Appreciate understanding and help :)
> > > > >
> > > > > -Mikhail
> > > > >
> > > > > On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 3:07 PM, Enis Söztutar <en...@apache.org>
> > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >> nvm, it is there already.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 3:06 PM, Enis Söztutar <en...@apache.org>
> > > wrote:
> > > > >>
> > > > >> > Mikhail, I suggest that we create the branch-1.3 now so that you
> > can
> > > > >> > control what goes in and what not. branch-1 is free for all
> > usually.
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > Enis
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 9:24 PM, Mikhail Antonov <
> > > > olorinbant@gmail.com>
> > > > >> > wrote:
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> >> Suddenly we had kind of a spike in jiras filed with
> > fixVersion=1.3
> > > > last
> > > > >> >> few
> > > > >> >> days, and I really want to get it out one of this days, so I
> want
> > > to
> > > > >> just
> > > > >> >> stabilize it now.
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> >> I kicked some jiras labeled as "major" out of 1.3, and if
> there's
> > > > >> >> something
> > > > >> >> affecting branch-1.3 but not "Blocker" or "Critical" let's
> target
> > > it
> > > > >> for
> > > > >> >> 1.3.1 and / or 1.4.
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> >> Thanks!
> > > > >> >> Mikhail
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> >> On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 11:52 AM, Mikhail Antonov <
> > > > >> olorinbant@gmail.com>
> > > > >> >> wrote:
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> >> > I'm not aware of any, and changes made to 1.3 shouldn't
> render
> > > 2.4
> > > > >> >> > unsupportable.
> > > > >> >> >
> > > > >> >> > On the second thought, if we want to have to maintain less
> > minor
> > > > >> >> releases
> > > > >> >> > in 1.* line and encourage folks to update,
> > > > >> >> > we need to keep maintaining those Hadoop versions, yeah.
> > > > >> >> >
> > > > >> >> > Let's leave 2.4 as supported.
> > > > >> >> >
> > > > >> >> > -Mikhail
> > > > >> >> >
> > > > >> >> > On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 7:11 AM, Sean Busbey <
> > > busbey@cloudera.com>
> > > > >> >> wrote:
> > > > >> >> >
> > > > >> >> >> On Fri, Jun 10, 2016 at 7:00 PM, Mikhail Antonov <
> > > > >> olorinbant@gmail.com
> > > > >> >> >
> > > > >> >> >> wrote:
> > > > >> >> >> >
> > > > >> >> >> > I'm thinking to move Hadoop 2.4.* from Supported to Not
> > > Tested,
> > > > to
> > > > >> >> kind
> > > > >> >> >> of
> > > > >> >> >> > encourage people to move and have less versions to test.
> How
> > > > many
> > > > >> >> people
> > > > >> >> >> > want to stick with Hadoop 2.4 yet upgrade to HBase 1.3?
> > > > >> >> >> >
> > > > >> >> >>
> > > > >> >> >> Hadoop 2.4 is still considered a "safe bet" stable release
> for
> > > > those
> > > > >> >> >> in LTM mode.
> > > > >> >> >>
> > > > >> >> >> Our compatibility guidelines say that we won't force an
> > > > incompatible
> > > > >> >> >> dependency
> > > > >> >> >> upgrade in a minor version. Do we know if Hadoop 2.4 -> 2.5
> > > > includes
> > > > >> >> any
> > > > >> >> >> documented incompatibilities?
> > > > >> >> >>
> > > > >> >> >> --
> > > > >> >> >> busbey
> > > > >> >> >>
> > > > >> >> >
> > > > >> >> >
> > > > >> >> >
> > > > >> >> > --
> > > > >> >> > Thanks,
> > > > >> >> > Michael Antonov
> > > > >> >> >
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> >> --
> > > > >> >> Thanks,
> > > > >> >> Michael Antonov
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> >
> > > > >>
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > Michael Antonov
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > Michael Antonov
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Re: Branch for 1.3

[Elliott Clark <ec...@apache.org>]

So the errors are pretty sparse. We're running in a pretty reasonable test
cluster and only seeing 300 errors out of 39 billion.

I'm going to start things running on two clusters with some logging, if
anyone has some other hints around what to look for. Or can get a better
repro that would be really helpful.

On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 2:21 PM, Dima Spivak <ds...@cloudera.com> wrote:

> Hey Elliott (et al.),
>
> I don’t have insight into the code that might have gone in to scanners, but
> I do have the ability to get clusters with chaos monkeys set up quickly
> (and some machines in-house to run them), so I’d be happy to help if
> there’s anything I can do.
>
> -Dima
>
> On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 12:47 PM, Elliott Clark <ec...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > Could use some help in HBASE-16074 if anyone has a cluster that has chaos
> > monkey set up. Right now it looks like there is some issue with scanners
> > during failures giving corrupt data.
> >
> > On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 12:28 PM, Mikhail Antonov <ol...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Hi guys,
> > >
> > > as we're stabilizing branch-1.3 builds and I also need to keep release
> > > notes / tag for 1.3 accurate, could you please ping me on jira if you
> > > commit something to this branch (I read commit log, but it's easy to
> miss
> > > something in there)?
> > >
> > > Thanks!
> > > Mikhail
> > >
> > > On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 3:24 PM, Mikhail Antonov <olorinbant@gmail.com
> >
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Yeah,  branch-1.3 was cut some time ago and for a while most of
> commits
> > > > going to branch-1 would also go to it, but last few days
> > > > I'm trying to let only the following things go in:
> > > >
> > > >  - criticals and blockers
> > > >  - test fixes and other patches stabilizing the branch
> > > >  - cherry-picks that were missed earlier.
> > > >  - oneliners / doc changes etc
> > > >
> > > > Appreciate understanding and help :)
> > > >
> > > > -Mikhail
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 3:07 PM, Enis Söztutar <en...@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> nvm, it is there already.
> > > >>
> > > >> On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 3:06 PM, Enis Söztutar <en...@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> > Mikhail, I suggest that we create the branch-1.3 now so that you
> can
> > > >> > control what goes in and what not. branch-1 is free for all
> usually.
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Enis
> > > >> >
> > > >> > On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 9:24 PM, Mikhail Antonov <
> > > olorinbant@gmail.com>
> > > >> > wrote:
> > > >> >
> > > >> >> Suddenly we had kind of a spike in jiras filed with
> fixVersion=1.3
> > > last
> > > >> >> few
> > > >> >> days, and I really want to get it out one of this days, so I want
> > to
> > > >> just
> > > >> >> stabilize it now.
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> I kicked some jiras labeled as "major" out of 1.3, and if there's
> > > >> >> something
> > > >> >> affecting branch-1.3 but not "Blocker" or "Critical" let's target
> > it
> > > >> for
> > > >> >> 1.3.1 and / or 1.4.
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> Thanks!
> > > >> >> Mikhail
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 11:52 AM, Mikhail Antonov <
> > > >> olorinbant@gmail.com>
> > > >> >> wrote:
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> > I'm not aware of any, and changes made to 1.3 shouldn't render
> > 2.4
> > > >> >> > unsupportable.
> > > >> >> >
> > > >> >> > On the second thought, if we want to have to maintain less
> minor
> > > >> >> releases
> > > >> >> > in 1.* line and encourage folks to update,
> > > >> >> > we need to keep maintaining those Hadoop versions, yeah.
> > > >> >> >
> > > >> >> > Let's leave 2.4 as supported.
> > > >> >> >
> > > >> >> > -Mikhail
> > > >> >> >
> > > >> >> > On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 7:11 AM, Sean Busbey <
> > busbey@cloudera.com>
> > > >> >> wrote:
> > > >> >> >
> > > >> >> >> On Fri, Jun 10, 2016 at 7:00 PM, Mikhail Antonov <
> > > >> olorinbant@gmail.com
> > > >> >> >
> > > >> >> >> wrote:
> > > >> >> >> >
> > > >> >> >> > I'm thinking to move Hadoop 2.4.* from Supported to Not
> > Tested,
> > > to
> > > >> >> kind
> > > >> >> >> of
> > > >> >> >> > encourage people to move and have less versions to test. How
> > > many
> > > >> >> people
> > > >> >> >> > want to stick with Hadoop 2.4 yet upgrade to HBase 1.3?
> > > >> >> >> >
> > > >> >> >>
> > > >> >> >> Hadoop 2.4 is still considered a "safe bet" stable release for
> > > those
> > > >> >> >> in LTM mode.
> > > >> >> >>
> > > >> >> >> Our compatibility guidelines say that we won't force an
> > > incompatible
> > > >> >> >> dependency
> > > >> >> >> upgrade in a minor version. Do we know if Hadoop 2.4 -> 2.5
> > > includes
> > > >> >> any
> > > >> >> >> documented incompatibilities?
> > > >> >> >>
> > > >> >> >> --
> > > >> >> >> busbey
> > > >> >> >>
> > > >> >> >
> > > >> >> >
> > > >> >> >
> > > >> >> > --
> > > >> >> > Thanks,
> > > >> >> > Michael Antonov
> > > >> >> >
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> --
> > > >> >> Thanks,
> > > >> >> Michael Antonov
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >
> > > >> >
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > Michael Antonov
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Thanks,
> > > Michael Antonov
> > >
> >
>

Re: Branch for 1.3

[Dima Spivak <ds...@cloudera.com>]

Hey Elliott (et al.),

I don’t have insight into the code that might have gone in to scanners, but
I do have the ability to get clusters with chaos monkeys set up quickly
(and some machines in-house to run them), so I’d be happy to help if
there’s anything I can do.

-Dima

On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 12:47 PM, Elliott Clark <ec...@apache.org> wrote:

> Could use some help in HBASE-16074 if anyone has a cluster that has chaos
> monkey set up. Right now it looks like there is some issue with scanners
> during failures giving corrupt data.
>
> On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 12:28 PM, Mikhail Antonov <ol...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Hi guys,
> >
> > as we're stabilizing branch-1.3 builds and I also need to keep release
> > notes / tag for 1.3 accurate, could you please ping me on jira if you
> > commit something to this branch (I read commit log, but it's easy to miss
> > something in there)?
> >
> > Thanks!
> > Mikhail
> >
> > On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 3:24 PM, Mikhail Antonov <ol...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Yeah,  branch-1.3 was cut some time ago and for a while most of commits
> > > going to branch-1 would also go to it, but last few days
> > > I'm trying to let only the following things go in:
> > >
> > >  - criticals and blockers
> > >  - test fixes and other patches stabilizing the branch
> > >  - cherry-picks that were missed earlier.
> > >  - oneliners / doc changes etc
> > >
> > > Appreciate understanding and help :)
> > >
> > > -Mikhail
> > >
> > > On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 3:07 PM, Enis Söztutar <en...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> > >
> > >> nvm, it is there already.
> > >>
> > >> On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 3:06 PM, Enis Söztutar <en...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> > Mikhail, I suggest that we create the branch-1.3 now so that you can
> > >> > control what goes in and what not. branch-1 is free for all usually.
> > >> >
> > >> > Enis
> > >> >
> > >> > On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 9:24 PM, Mikhail Antonov <
> > olorinbant@gmail.com>
> > >> > wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> >> Suddenly we had kind of a spike in jiras filed with fixVersion=1.3
> > last
> > >> >> few
> > >> >> days, and I really want to get it out one of this days, so I want
> to
> > >> just
> > >> >> stabilize it now.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> I kicked some jiras labeled as "major" out of 1.3, and if there's
> > >> >> something
> > >> >> affecting branch-1.3 but not "Blocker" or "Critical" let's target
> it
> > >> for
> > >> >> 1.3.1 and / or 1.4.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> Thanks!
> > >> >> Mikhail
> > >> >>
> > >> >> On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 11:52 AM, Mikhail Antonov <
> > >> olorinbant@gmail.com>
> > >> >> wrote:
> > >> >>
> > >> >> > I'm not aware of any, and changes made to 1.3 shouldn't render
> 2.4
> > >> >> > unsupportable.
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> > On the second thought, if we want to have to maintain less minor
> > >> >> releases
> > >> >> > in 1.* line and encourage folks to update,
> > >> >> > we need to keep maintaining those Hadoop versions, yeah.
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> > Let's leave 2.4 as supported.
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> > -Mikhail
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> > On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 7:11 AM, Sean Busbey <
> busbey@cloudera.com>
> > >> >> wrote:
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> >> On Fri, Jun 10, 2016 at 7:00 PM, Mikhail Antonov <
> > >> olorinbant@gmail.com
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> >> wrote:
> > >> >> >> >
> > >> >> >> > I'm thinking to move Hadoop 2.4.* from Supported to Not
> Tested,
> > to
> > >> >> kind
> > >> >> >> of
> > >> >> >> > encourage people to move and have less versions to test. How
> > many
> > >> >> people
> > >> >> >> > want to stick with Hadoop 2.4 yet upgrade to HBase 1.3?
> > >> >> >> >
> > >> >> >>
> > >> >> >> Hadoop 2.4 is still considered a "safe bet" stable release for
> > those
> > >> >> >> in LTM mode.
> > >> >> >>
> > >> >> >> Our compatibility guidelines say that we won't force an
> > incompatible
> > >> >> >> dependency
> > >> >> >> upgrade in a minor version. Do we know if Hadoop 2.4 -> 2.5
> > includes
> > >> >> any
> > >> >> >> documented incompatibilities?
> > >> >> >>
> > >> >> >> --
> > >> >> >> busbey
> > >> >> >>
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> > --
> > >> >> > Thanks,
> > >> >> > Michael Antonov
> > >> >> >
> > >> >>
> > >> >>
> > >> >>
> > >> >> --
> > >> >> Thanks,
> > >> >> Michael Antonov
> > >> >>
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Thanks,
> > > Michael Antonov
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Thanks,
> > Michael Antonov
> >
>

Re: Branch for 1.3

[Elliott Clark <ec...@apache.org>]

Could use some help in HBASE-16074 if anyone has a cluster that has chaos
monkey set up. Right now it looks like there is some issue with scanners
during failures giving corrupt data.

On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 12:28 PM, Mikhail Antonov <ol...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Hi guys,
>
> as we're stabilizing branch-1.3 builds and I also need to keep release
> notes / tag for 1.3 accurate, could you please ping me on jira if you
> commit something to this branch (I read commit log, but it's easy to miss
> something in there)?
>
> Thanks!
> Mikhail
>
> On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 3:24 PM, Mikhail Antonov <ol...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Yeah,  branch-1.3 was cut some time ago and for a while most of commits
> > going to branch-1 would also go to it, but last few days
> > I'm trying to let only the following things go in:
> >
> >  - criticals and blockers
> >  - test fixes and other patches stabilizing the branch
> >  - cherry-picks that were missed earlier.
> >  - oneliners / doc changes etc
> >
> > Appreciate understanding and help :)
> >
> > -Mikhail
> >
> > On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 3:07 PM, Enis Söztutar <en...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> >> nvm, it is there already.
> >>
> >> On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 3:06 PM, Enis Söztutar <en...@apache.org> wrote:
> >>
> >> > Mikhail, I suggest that we create the branch-1.3 now so that you can
> >> > control what goes in and what not. branch-1 is free for all usually.
> >> >
> >> > Enis
> >> >
> >> > On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 9:24 PM, Mikhail Antonov <
> olorinbant@gmail.com>
> >> > wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> Suddenly we had kind of a spike in jiras filed with fixVersion=1.3
> last
> >> >> few
> >> >> days, and I really want to get it out one of this days, so I want to
> >> just
> >> >> stabilize it now.
> >> >>
> >> >> I kicked some jiras labeled as "major" out of 1.3, and if there's
> >> >> something
> >> >> affecting branch-1.3 but not "Blocker" or "Critical" let's target it
> >> for
> >> >> 1.3.1 and / or 1.4.
> >> >>
> >> >> Thanks!
> >> >> Mikhail
> >> >>
> >> >> On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 11:52 AM, Mikhail Antonov <
> >> olorinbant@gmail.com>
> >> >> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> > I'm not aware of any, and changes made to 1.3 shouldn't render 2.4
> >> >> > unsupportable.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > On the second thought, if we want to have to maintain less minor
> >> >> releases
> >> >> > in 1.* line and encourage folks to update,
> >> >> > we need to keep maintaining those Hadoop versions, yeah.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Let's leave 2.4 as supported.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > -Mikhail
> >> >> >
> >> >> > On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 7:11 AM, Sean Busbey <bu...@cloudera.com>
> >> >> wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> On Fri, Jun 10, 2016 at 7:00 PM, Mikhail Antonov <
> >> olorinbant@gmail.com
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> wrote:
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > I'm thinking to move Hadoop 2.4.* from Supported to Not Tested,
> to
> >> >> kind
> >> >> >> of
> >> >> >> > encourage people to move and have less versions to test. How
> many
> >> >> people
> >> >> >> > want to stick with Hadoop 2.4 yet upgrade to HBase 1.3?
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Hadoop 2.4 is still considered a "safe bet" stable release for
> those
> >> >> >> in LTM mode.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Our compatibility guidelines say that we won't force an
> incompatible
> >> >> >> dependency
> >> >> >> upgrade in a minor version. Do we know if Hadoop 2.4 -> 2.5
> includes
> >> >> any
> >> >> >> documented incompatibilities?
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> --
> >> >> >> busbey
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> > --
> >> >> > Thanks,
> >> >> > Michael Antonov
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> --
> >> >> Thanks,
> >> >> Michael Antonov
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Thanks,
> > Michael Antonov
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Thanks,
> Michael Antonov
>

Re: Branch for 1.3

[Mikhail Antonov <ol...@gmail.com>]

Hi guys,

as we're stabilizing branch-1.3 builds and I also need to keep release
notes / tag for 1.3 accurate, could you please ping me on jira if you
commit something to this branch (I read commit log, but it's easy to miss
something in there)?

Thanks!
Mikhail

On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 3:24 PM, Mikhail Antonov <ol...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Yeah,  branch-1.3 was cut some time ago and for a while most of commits
> going to branch-1 would also go to it, but last few days
> I'm trying to let only the following things go in:
>
>  - criticals and blockers
>  - test fixes and other patches stabilizing the branch
>  - cherry-picks that were missed earlier.
>  - oneliners / doc changes etc
>
> Appreciate understanding and help :)
>
> -Mikhail
>
> On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 3:07 PM, Enis Söztutar <en...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> nvm, it is there already.
>>
>> On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 3:06 PM, Enis Söztutar <en...@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>> > Mikhail, I suggest that we create the branch-1.3 now so that you can
>> > control what goes in and what not. branch-1 is free for all usually.
>> >
>> > Enis
>> >
>> > On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 9:24 PM, Mikhail Antonov <ol...@gmail.com>
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> >> Suddenly we had kind of a spike in jiras filed with fixVersion=1.3 last
>> >> few
>> >> days, and I really want to get it out one of this days, so I want to
>> just
>> >> stabilize it now.
>> >>
>> >> I kicked some jiras labeled as "major" out of 1.3, and if there's
>> >> something
>> >> affecting branch-1.3 but not "Blocker" or "Critical" let's target it
>> for
>> >> 1.3.1 and / or 1.4.
>> >>
>> >> Thanks!
>> >> Mikhail
>> >>
>> >> On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 11:52 AM, Mikhail Antonov <
>> olorinbant@gmail.com>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > I'm not aware of any, and changes made to 1.3 shouldn't render 2.4
>> >> > unsupportable.
>> >> >
>> >> > On the second thought, if we want to have to maintain less minor
>> >> releases
>> >> > in 1.* line and encourage folks to update,
>> >> > we need to keep maintaining those Hadoop versions, yeah.
>> >> >
>> >> > Let's leave 2.4 as supported.
>> >> >
>> >> > -Mikhail
>> >> >
>> >> > On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 7:11 AM, Sean Busbey <bu...@cloudera.com>
>> >> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> On Fri, Jun 10, 2016 at 7:00 PM, Mikhail Antonov <
>> olorinbant@gmail.com
>> >> >
>> >> >> wrote:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > I'm thinking to move Hadoop 2.4.* from Supported to Not Tested, to
>> >> kind
>> >> >> of
>> >> >> > encourage people to move and have less versions to test. How many
>> >> people
>> >> >> > want to stick with Hadoop 2.4 yet upgrade to HBase 1.3?
>> >> >> >
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Hadoop 2.4 is still considered a "safe bet" stable release for those
>> >> >> in LTM mode.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Our compatibility guidelines say that we won't force an incompatible
>> >> >> dependency
>> >> >> upgrade in a minor version. Do we know if Hadoop 2.4 -> 2.5 includes
>> >> any
>> >> >> documented incompatibilities?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> --
>> >> >> busbey
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > --
>> >> > Thanks,
>> >> > Michael Antonov
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> Thanks,
>> >> Michael Antonov
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Thanks,
> Michael Antonov
>



-- 
Thanks,
Michael Antonov

Re: Branch for 1.3

[Mikhail Antonov <ol...@gmail.com>]

Yeah,  branch-1.3 was cut some time ago and for a while most of commits
going to branch-1 would also go to it, but last few days
I'm trying to let only the following things go in:

 - criticals and blockers
 - test fixes and other patches stabilizing the branch
 - cherry-picks that were missed earlier.
 - oneliners / doc changes etc

Appreciate understanding and help :)

-Mikhail

On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 3:07 PM, Enis Söztutar <en...@apache.org> wrote:

> nvm, it is there already.
>
> On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 3:06 PM, Enis Söztutar <en...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > Mikhail, I suggest that we create the branch-1.3 now so that you can
> > control what goes in and what not. branch-1 is free for all usually.
> >
> > Enis
> >
> > On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 9:24 PM, Mikhail Antonov <ol...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Suddenly we had kind of a spike in jiras filed with fixVersion=1.3 last
> >> few
> >> days, and I really want to get it out one of this days, so I want to
> just
> >> stabilize it now.
> >>
> >> I kicked some jiras labeled as "major" out of 1.3, and if there's
> >> something
> >> affecting branch-1.3 but not "Blocker" or "Critical" let's target it for
> >> 1.3.1 and / or 1.4.
> >>
> >> Thanks!
> >> Mikhail
> >>
> >> On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 11:52 AM, Mikhail Antonov <olorinbant@gmail.com
> >
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> > I'm not aware of any, and changes made to 1.3 shouldn't render 2.4
> >> > unsupportable.
> >> >
> >> > On the second thought, if we want to have to maintain less minor
> >> releases
> >> > in 1.* line and encourage folks to update,
> >> > we need to keep maintaining those Hadoop versions, yeah.
> >> >
> >> > Let's leave 2.4 as supported.
> >> >
> >> > -Mikhail
> >> >
> >> > On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 7:11 AM, Sean Busbey <bu...@cloudera.com>
> >> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> On Fri, Jun 10, 2016 at 7:00 PM, Mikhail Antonov <
> olorinbant@gmail.com
> >> >
> >> >> wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> > I'm thinking to move Hadoop 2.4.* from Supported to Not Tested, to
> >> kind
> >> >> of
> >> >> > encourage people to move and have less versions to test. How many
> >> people
> >> >> > want to stick with Hadoop 2.4 yet upgrade to HBase 1.3?
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> Hadoop 2.4 is still considered a "safe bet" stable release for those
> >> >> in LTM mode.
> >> >>
> >> >> Our compatibility guidelines say that we won't force an incompatible
> >> >> dependency
> >> >> upgrade in a minor version. Do we know if Hadoop 2.4 -> 2.5 includes
> >> any
> >> >> documented incompatibilities?
> >> >>
> >> >> --
> >> >> busbey
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > --
> >> > Thanks,
> >> > Michael Antonov
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Thanks,
> >> Michael Antonov
> >>
> >
> >
>



-- 
Thanks,
Michael Antonov

Re: Branch for 1.3

[Enis Söztutar <en...@apache.org>]

nvm, it is there already.

On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 3:06 PM, Enis Söztutar <en...@apache.org> wrote:

> Mikhail, I suggest that we create the branch-1.3 now so that you can
> control what goes in and what not. branch-1 is free for all usually.
>
> Enis
>
> On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 9:24 PM, Mikhail Antonov <ol...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Suddenly we had kind of a spike in jiras filed with fixVersion=1.3 last
>> few
>> days, and I really want to get it out one of this days, so I want to just
>> stabilize it now.
>>
>> I kicked some jiras labeled as "major" out of 1.3, and if there's
>> something
>> affecting branch-1.3 but not "Blocker" or "Critical" let's target it for
>> 1.3.1 and / or 1.4.
>>
>> Thanks!
>> Mikhail
>>
>> On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 11:52 AM, Mikhail Antonov <ol...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > I'm not aware of any, and changes made to 1.3 shouldn't render 2.4
>> > unsupportable.
>> >
>> > On the second thought, if we want to have to maintain less minor
>> releases
>> > in 1.* line and encourage folks to update,
>> > we need to keep maintaining those Hadoop versions, yeah.
>> >
>> > Let's leave 2.4 as supported.
>> >
>> > -Mikhail
>> >
>> > On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 7:11 AM, Sean Busbey <bu...@cloudera.com>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Fri, Jun 10, 2016 at 7:00 PM, Mikhail Antonov <olorinbant@gmail.com
>> >
>> >> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > I'm thinking to move Hadoop 2.4.* from Supported to Not Tested, to
>> kind
>> >> of
>> >> > encourage people to move and have less versions to test. How many
>> people
>> >> > want to stick with Hadoop 2.4 yet upgrade to HBase 1.3?
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> Hadoop 2.4 is still considered a "safe bet" stable release for those
>> >> in LTM mode.
>> >>
>> >> Our compatibility guidelines say that we won't force an incompatible
>> >> dependency
>> >> upgrade in a minor version. Do we know if Hadoop 2.4 -> 2.5 includes
>> any
>> >> documented incompatibilities?
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> busbey
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > Thanks,
>> > Michael Antonov
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Thanks,
>> Michael Antonov
>>
>
>

Re: Branch for 1.3

[Enis Söztutar <en...@apache.org>]

Mikhail, I suggest that we create the branch-1.3 now so that you can
control what goes in and what not. branch-1 is free for all usually.

Enis

On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 9:24 PM, Mikhail Antonov <ol...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Suddenly we had kind of a spike in jiras filed with fixVersion=1.3 last few
> days, and I really want to get it out one of this days, so I want to just
> stabilize it now.
>
> I kicked some jiras labeled as "major" out of 1.3, and if there's something
> affecting branch-1.3 but not "Blocker" or "Critical" let's target it for
> 1.3.1 and / or 1.4.
>
> Thanks!
> Mikhail
>
> On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 11:52 AM, Mikhail Antonov <ol...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > I'm not aware of any, and changes made to 1.3 shouldn't render 2.4
> > unsupportable.
> >
> > On the second thought, if we want to have to maintain less minor releases
> > in 1.* line and encourage folks to update,
> > we need to keep maintaining those Hadoop versions, yeah.
> >
> > Let's leave 2.4 as supported.
> >
> > -Mikhail
> >
> > On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 7:11 AM, Sean Busbey <bu...@cloudera.com>
> wrote:
> >
> >> On Fri, Jun 10, 2016 at 7:00 PM, Mikhail Antonov <ol...@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > I'm thinking to move Hadoop 2.4.* from Supported to Not Tested, to
> kind
> >> of
> >> > encourage people to move and have less versions to test. How many
> people
> >> > want to stick with Hadoop 2.4 yet upgrade to HBase 1.3?
> >> >
> >>
> >> Hadoop 2.4 is still considered a "safe bet" stable release for those
> >> in LTM mode.
> >>
> >> Our compatibility guidelines say that we won't force an incompatible
> >> dependency
> >> upgrade in a minor version. Do we know if Hadoop 2.4 -> 2.5 includes any
> >> documented incompatibilities?
> >>
> >> --
> >> busbey
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Thanks,
> > Michael Antonov
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Thanks,
> Michael Antonov
>

Re: Branch for 1.3

[Mikhail Antonov <ol...@gmail.com>]

Suddenly we had kind of a spike in jiras filed with fixVersion=1.3 last few
days, and I really want to get it out one of this days, so I want to just
stabilize it now.

I kicked some jiras labeled as "major" out of 1.3, and if there's something
affecting branch-1.3 but not "Blocker" or "Critical" let's target it for
1.3.1 and / or 1.4.

Thanks!
Mikhail

On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 11:52 AM, Mikhail Antonov <ol...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> I'm not aware of any, and changes made to 1.3 shouldn't render 2.4
> unsupportable.
>
> On the second thought, if we want to have to maintain less minor releases
> in 1.* line and encourage folks to update,
> we need to keep maintaining those Hadoop versions, yeah.
>
> Let's leave 2.4 as supported.
>
> -Mikhail
>
> On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 7:11 AM, Sean Busbey <bu...@cloudera.com> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Jun 10, 2016 at 7:00 PM, Mikhail Antonov <ol...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > I'm thinking to move Hadoop 2.4.* from Supported to Not Tested, to kind
>> of
>> > encourage people to move and have less versions to test. How many people
>> > want to stick with Hadoop 2.4 yet upgrade to HBase 1.3?
>> >
>>
>> Hadoop 2.4 is still considered a "safe bet" stable release for those
>> in LTM mode.
>>
>> Our compatibility guidelines say that we won't force an incompatible
>> dependency
>> upgrade in a minor version. Do we know if Hadoop 2.4 -> 2.5 includes any
>> documented incompatibilities?
>>
>> --
>> busbey
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Thanks,
> Michael Antonov
>



-- 
Thanks,
Michael Antonov

Re: Branch for 1.3

[Mikhail Antonov <ol...@gmail.com>]

I'm not aware of any, and changes made to 1.3 shouldn't render 2.4
unsupportable.

On the second thought, if we want to have to maintain less minor releases
in 1.* line and encourage folks to update,
we need to keep maintaining those Hadoop versions, yeah.

Let's leave 2.4 as supported.

-Mikhail

On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 7:11 AM, Sean Busbey <bu...@cloudera.com> wrote:

> On Fri, Jun 10, 2016 at 7:00 PM, Mikhail Antonov <ol...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > I'm thinking to move Hadoop 2.4.* from Supported to Not Tested, to kind
> of
> > encourage people to move and have less versions to test. How many people
> > want to stick with Hadoop 2.4 yet upgrade to HBase 1.3?
> >
>
> Hadoop 2.4 is still considered a "safe bet" stable release for those
> in LTM mode.
>
> Our compatibility guidelines say that we won't force an incompatible
> dependency
> upgrade in a minor version. Do we know if Hadoop 2.4 -> 2.5 includes any
> documented incompatibilities?
>
> --
> busbey
>



-- 
Thanks,
Michael Antonov

Re: Branch for 1.3

[Sean Busbey <bu...@cloudera.com>]

On Fri, Jun 10, 2016 at 7:00 PM, Mikhail Antonov <ol...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I'm thinking to move Hadoop 2.4.* from Supported to Not Tested, to kind of
> encourage people to move and have less versions to test. How many people
> want to stick with Hadoop 2.4 yet upgrade to HBase 1.3?
>

Hadoop 2.4 is still considered a "safe bet" stable release for those
in LTM mode.

Our compatibility guidelines say that we won't force an incompatible dependency
upgrade in a minor version. Do we know if Hadoop 2.4 -> 2.5 includes any
documented incompatibilities?

-- 
busbey

Re: Branch for 1.3

[Enis Söztutar <en...@apache.org>]

We should have a conclusion for HBASE-15406 (roll forward or backwards)
before 1.3.0.

Enis

On Fri, Jun 10, 2016 at 5:04 PM, Ted Yu <yu...@gmail.com> wrote:

> bq. How many people want to stick with Hadoop 2.4 yet upgrade to HBase 1.3?
>
> Seems like the above question should be asked on user@ also.
>
> On Fri, Jun 10, 2016 at 5:00 PM, Mikhail Antonov <ol...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Basically everything I waited for to land in 1.3 is done so it's time to
> > start rolling RCs.
> >
> > in HBASE-15344 I'm thinking about supported versions, it looks like they
> > could be the same as for 1.2
> >
> > I'm thinking to move Hadoop 2.4.* from Supported to Not Tested, to kind
> of
> > encourage people to move and have less versions to test. How many people
> > want to stick with Hadoop 2.4 yet upgrade to HBase 1.3?
> >
> > -Mikhail
> >
> > On Sun, May 15, 2016 at 11:53 PM, Sean Busbey <bu...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> > > On Sun, May 15, 2016 at 10:51 PM, Mikhail Antonov <
> olorinbant@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > > Thanks Sean, I indeed missed that looking at the list of issues. I'm
> > not
> > > > familiar with Phoenix, but will try to look at the HBase side and
> help
> > > > reviewing patches here. I also see that HBASE-14845 is marked
> critical
> > > (and
> > > > 's been for long time), do you want that patch in for 1.3 or should
> we
> > > bump
> > > > it to 1.3.1/1.4.0?
> > > >
> > >
> > > I never managed to get it out of test scope, and I doubt it'll get
> > > done in a timely manner.
> > >
> > > Best to bump it out.
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Thanks,
> > Michael Antonov
> >
>

Re: Branch for 1.3

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

bq. How many people want to stick with Hadoop 2.4 yet upgrade to HBase 1.3?

Seems like the above question should be asked on user@ also.

On Fri, Jun 10, 2016 at 5:00 PM, Mikhail Antonov <ol...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Basically everything I waited for to land in 1.3 is done so it's time to
> start rolling RCs.
>
> in HBASE-15344 I'm thinking about supported versions, it looks like they
> could be the same as for 1.2
>
> I'm thinking to move Hadoop 2.4.* from Supported to Not Tested, to kind of
> encourage people to move and have less versions to test. How many people
> want to stick with Hadoop 2.4 yet upgrade to HBase 1.3?
>
> -Mikhail
>
> On Sun, May 15, 2016 at 11:53 PM, Sean Busbey <bu...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > On Sun, May 15, 2016 at 10:51 PM, Mikhail Antonov <ol...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > Thanks Sean, I indeed missed that looking at the list of issues. I'm
> not
> > > familiar with Phoenix, but will try to look at the HBase side and help
> > > reviewing patches here. I also see that HBASE-14845 is marked critical
> > (and
> > > 's been for long time), do you want that patch in for 1.3 or should we
> > bump
> > > it to 1.3.1/1.4.0?
> > >
> >
> > I never managed to get it out of test scope, and I doubt it'll get
> > done in a timely manner.
> >
> > Best to bump it out.
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Thanks,
> Michael Antonov
>

Re: Branch for 1.3

[Mikhail Antonov <ol...@gmail.com>]

Basically everything I waited for to land in 1.3 is done so it's time to
start rolling RCs.

in HBASE-15344 I'm thinking about supported versions, it looks like they
could be the same as for 1.2

I'm thinking to move Hadoop 2.4.* from Supported to Not Tested, to kind of
encourage people to move and have less versions to test. How many people
want to stick with Hadoop 2.4 yet upgrade to HBase 1.3?

-Mikhail

On Sun, May 15, 2016 at 11:53 PM, Sean Busbey <bu...@apache.org> wrote:

> On Sun, May 15, 2016 at 10:51 PM, Mikhail Antonov <ol...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > Thanks Sean, I indeed missed that looking at the list of issues. I'm not
> > familiar with Phoenix, but will try to look at the HBase side and help
> > reviewing patches here. I also see that HBASE-14845 is marked critical
> (and
> > 's been for long time), do you want that patch in for 1.3 or should we
> bump
> > it to 1.3.1/1.4.0?
> >
>
> I never managed to get it out of test scope, and I doubt it'll get
> done in a timely manner.
>
> Best to bump it out.
>



-- 
Thanks,
Michael Antonov

Re: Branch for 1.3

[Sean Busbey <bu...@apache.org>]

On Sun, May 15, 2016 at 10:51 PM, Mikhail Antonov <ol...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Thanks Sean, I indeed missed that looking at the list of issues. I'm not
> familiar with Phoenix, but will try to look at the HBase side and help
> reviewing patches here. I also see that HBASE-14845 is marked critical (and
> 's been for long time), do you want that patch in for 1.3 or should we bump
> it to 1.3.1/1.4.0?
>

I never managed to get it out of test scope, and I doubt it'll get
done in a timely manner.

Best to bump it out.

Re: Branch for 1.3

[Mikhail Antonov <ol...@gmail.com>]

Thanks Sean, I indeed missed that looking at the list of issues. I'm not
familiar with Phoenix, but will try to look at the HBase side and help
reviewing patches here. I also see that HBASE-14845 is marked critical (and
's been for long time), do you want that patch in for 1.3 or should we bump
it to 1.3.1/1.4.0?

-Mikhail

On Sun, May 15, 2016 at 10:38 PM, Sean Busbey <bu...@cloudera.com> wrote:

> HBASE-15698 is still open and a blocker.
>
> I've been stepping through phoenix + hbase code to chase it down, but
> so far haven't pinned it down. If anyone has more familiarity with
> Phoenix than me, another set of eyes would be great.
>
> On Sun, May 15, 2016 at 10:19 PM, Mikhail Antonov <ol...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > Hey guys,
> >
> > I'm planning to roll first RC for branch 1.3 tomorrow, was holding off on
> > the fix for HBASE-15811 to get committed. At the moment I'm not aware of
> > any major bugfixes marked for 1.3. I've moved / moving to 1.4 several
> jiras
> > without recent movement in there, like:
> >
> >  - HBASE-15593 (could still go in 1.3 if committed soon? Seems like no
> > objections to it so far)
> >  - HBASE-15454 (improvements in date-tiered compactions, waiting for more
> > perf testing?)
> >  - HBASE-15691 (concurrent modification exception in bucket cache in
> > branch-1,
> >     this is indeed a bug, but seems like branch-1 have lived without this
> > fix for long enough so far)
> >
> > Ping me on the above if there's movement and desire go get it in.
> >
> > There're two jiras which should be ready to get committed pretty soon,
> > related to interfaces:
> >
> >  - HBASE-15780 (make AuthUtils public) and
> >  - HBASE-15779 (examples for the above).
> >
> > Let me know if you have any concerns, or anything which could have
> escaped
> > my view and should go to 1.3.
> >
> > Thanks!
> > Mikhail
> >
> >
> >
> > There are few jiras I've kicked out of 1.3 schedule:
> >
> >   - HBASE-15454, improvements for date-tiered compactions waiting for
> more
> > perf testing
> >
> >
> >
> > So
> >
> > On Fri, May 6, 2016 at 10:32 AM, Mikhail Antonov <ol...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Heads up on where we are with branch-1.3.
> >>
> >> Lots of stuff we had outstanding 10 days ago got committed and now we
> are
> >> down to just 3 bugfixes
> >> and 2 features which I'm looking to get in, all have patches in review.
> I
> >> hope we could get them in
> >> in next few days and then I can start preparing RCs.
> >>
> >> Bugfixes:
> >>
> >> HBASE-15691 Port HBASE-10205 (ConcurrentModificationException in
> >> BucketAllocator) to branch-1 (Andrew/Stack let me know if I can help
> here?
> >> Any more performance testing we wait for?)
> >> HBASE-15615 Wrong sleep time when RegionServerCallable need retry
> (almost
> >> there, just some more tests around would be great)
> >> HBASE-15593 Time limit of scanning should be offered by client (Stack -
> >> should we get it in or you're looking for more tests?)
> >>
> >> Features:
> >>
> >> HBASE-15454 Archive store files older than max age (Duo / Heng / Enis do
> >> we wait for more reviews/tests?)
> >> HBASE-15773 CellCounter improvements (should be pretty straightforward
> to
> >> get in)
> >>
> >> Let me know if I missed anything.
> >>
> >> -Mikhail
> >>
> >> On Wed, Apr 27, 2016 at 10:20 PM, Mikhail Antonov <olorinbant@gmail.com
> >
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Thanks!
> >>>
> >>> -Mikhail
> >>>
> >>> On 4/27/16, ramkrishna vasudevan <ra...@gmail.com>
> >>> wrote:
> >>> > I saw Andy's comment. Will create a patch for trunk also and will
> commit
> >>> > both together.
> >>> >
> >>> > Regards
> >>> > Ram
> >>> >
> >>> > On Thu, Apr 28, 2016 at 10:39 AM, Mikhail Antonov <
> antonov@apache.org>
> >>> > wrote:
> >>> >
> >>> >> Thanks Ram! It seems like that's fixed now (the problem when we
> don't
> >>> >> compact often enough in TestHRegion).
> >>> >>
> >>> >> On Wed, Apr 27, 2016 at 4:19 AM, ramkrishna vasudevan <
> >>> >> ramkrishna.s.vasudevan@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> >>
> >>> >> > >>Also need to figure out situation around HBASE-14970 -
> HBASE-13082
> >>> >> > - HBASE-15697,
> >>> >> > Regarding this - HBASE-14970 is found in both branch-1 and
> >>> branch-1.3.
> >>> >> The
> >>> >> > patch for HBASE-15697 solves the ulimit issue with respect number
> of
> >>> >> > open
> >>> >> > files. Once Andrew verifies it we can commit the patch and you can
> >>> have
> >>> >> > that in the branch-1.3 release IMHO.
> >>> >> >
> >>> >> > Thanks Mikhail for the heads up.
> >>> >> >
> >>> >> > Regards
> >>> >> > Ram
> >>> >> >
> >>> >> > On Wed, Apr 27, 2016 at 2:40 PM, Mikhail Antonov <
> antonov@apache.org
> >>> >
> >>> >> > wrote:
> >>> >> >
> >>> >> > > Ok, I think it's time to bring up this thread again. Let's see
> >>> where
> >>> >> > > we
> >>> >> > > are.
> >>> >> > >
> >>> >> > > So, outstanding -
> >>> >> > >
> >>> >> > > Significant bugs (looked through jira filters):
> >>> >> > >  - Several bugfixes/improvements in HBase client, often related
> to
> >>> >> > > rpc/retries, went in recently or about to go in.
> >>> >> > >   * HBASE-15645, when we don't use rpc timeouts properly, went
> in
> >>> >> > (pending
> >>> >> > > addendum for nits)
> >>> >> > >   * HBASE-15658, when we unnecessarily clear MetaCache on
> retries,
> >>> >> > > went
> >>> >> > in
> >>> >> > > on 1.3+,
> >>> >> > >      probably should go in 1.2 as well, see discussion there.
> >>> >> > >  * HBASE-15593, and HBASE-15615 - those should be addressed
> soon I
> >>> >> guess
> >>> >> > >
> >>> >> > >  - Bucket cache fixes improvements, HBASE-15240 and subtasks,
> would
> >>> >> > > be
> >>> >> > good
> >>> >> > > to pull in as much as possible.
> >>> >> > >  - HBASE-15703, bug in deadline rpc scheduler, I'd need to fix
> it
> >>> >> before
> >>> >> > > the release
> >>> >> > >
> >>> >> > > Any other very-nice-to-get-in fixes we want?
> >>> >> > >
> >>> >> > > Also need to figure out situation around HBASE-14970 -
> HBASE-13082
> >>> >> > > - HBASE-15697,
> >>> >> > > I kind of lost track what was committed/reverted/re-aplied on
> which
> >>> >> > branch.
> >>> >> > > @Andrew, Stack, Ram
> >>> >> > >
> >>> >> > > Features:
> >>> >> > >    * Date-tiered compactions. I'm looking at umbrella jira for
> d-t
> >>> >> > > compactions, HBASE-15339 <
> >>> >> > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-15339>
> >>> >> > > ,
> >>> >> > >       looks like there's one big item left on the list
> >>> (HBASE-15454,
> >>> >> > > archive StoreFile older than max age),
> >>> >> > >       and it's being actively worked on / reviewed, and another
> >>> one -
> >>> >> > > documentation task, so I assume it's all good
> >>> >> > >       and we get all date-tiers compactions improvements for
> 1.3.
> >>> >> > >   * Spark connector. Haven't seen much activity on it lately.
> Sean
> >>> -
> >>> >> what
> >>> >> > > do you think about HBASE-14160?
> >>> >> > >      I'm inclined to push it to 1.4 (or whatever next release
> will
> >>> >> > > be)
> >>> >> if
> >>> >> > > there're no takers at this point.
> >>> >> > >
> >>> >> > >
> >>> >> > > Thanks!
> >>> >> > > Mikhail
> >>> >> > >
> >>> >> > >
> >>> >> > >
> >>> >> > > On Fri, Apr 22, 2016 at 2:22 PM, Ted Yu <yu...@gmail.com>
> >>> wrote:
> >>> >> > >
> >>> >> > > > bq. There are several patches
> >>> >> > > >
> >>> >> > > > Let us know the JIRA numbers.
> >>> >> > > > I can help with reviewing if needed.
> >>> >> > > >
> >>> >> > > > Cheers
> >>> >> > > >
> >>> >> > > > On Fri, Apr 22, 2016 at 2:18 PM, Mikhail Antonov <
> >>> >> olorinbant@gmail.com
> >>> >> > >
> >>> >> > > > wrote:
> >>> >> > > >
> >>> >> > > > > Last time I've tried to run 1.3 builds there were issues
> with
> >>> >> > balancer,
> >>> >> > > > > which are fixed now. There are several patches I definitely
> >>> would
> >>> >> > like
> >>> >> > > to
> >>> >> > > > > pull in, other than that I feel we are pretty close. I'll
> start
> >>> >> > > spinning
> >>> >> > > > > internal builds in a few days and if things look good will
> >>> start
> >>> >> > > > preparing
> >>> >> > > > > RC's next week or so.
> >>> >> > > > >
> >>> >> > > > > I guess we are getting to feature-complete state, I'll walk
> >>> >> > > > > through
> >>> >> > the
> >>> >> > > > > jiras and send detailed email over weekend.
> >>> >> > > > >
> >>> >> > > > > Thanks!
> >>> >> > > > > Mikhail
> >>> >> > > > >
> >>> >> > > > > > On Apr 22, 2016, at 8:13 AM, Ted Yu <yu...@gmail.com>
> >>> >> > > > > > wrote:
> >>> >> > > > > >
> >>> >> > > > > > Mikhail:
> >>> >> > > > > > Any plan when to spin 1.3 RC0 ?
> >>> >> > > > > >
> >>> >> > > > > > HBaseCon is not very far.
> >>> >> > > > > >
> >>> >> > > > > > I was wondering if 1.3 release can be done before
> HBaseCon.
> >>> >> > > > > >
> >>> >> > > > > > Cheers
> >>> >> > > > > >
> >>> >> > > > > > On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 12:54 PM, Mikhail Antonov <
> >>> >> > > antonov@apache.org>
> >>> >> > > > > > wrote:
> >>> >> > > > > >
> >>> >> > > > > >> To me it's not really about individual big features
> >>> (besides,
> >>> >> big
> >>> >> > > > > features
> >>> >> > > > > >> might be hard to accommodate in a minor release), but
> enough
> >>> >> good
> >>> >> > > > > things to
> >>> >> > > > > >> justify minor release.
> >>> >> > > > > >>
> >>> >> > > > > >> What we can have (unless I'm missing something):
> >>> >> > > > > >>
> >>> >> > > > > >> [Already done or to be further improved]
> >>> >> > > > > >> - HBASE-15177 - more GC-friendly allocations in RPC
> services
> >>> >> > > > > >> - HBASE-14457 - multi WAL improvements
> >>> >> > > > > >> - HBASE-15222 - optimizations in metrics system, some
> more
> >>> >> metrics
> >>> >> > > > > >> (like HBASE-15135, HBASE-15068)
> >>> >> > > > > >> - HBASE-15306, HBASE-15136 - improving call queues
> handling
> >>> >> > > > > >>
> >>> >> > > > > >> [To be reviewed?):
> >>> >> > > > > >> - HBASE-15181 - date based tiered compactions (?)
> >>> >> > > > > >> - HBASE-11290 - unlock RegionStates. There was a patch
> >>> update
> >>> >> > > > relatively
> >>> >> > > > > >> recently to it based on comments.
> >>> >> > > > > >>
> >>> >> > > > > >> [Possible?]
> >>> >> > > > > >> - HBASE-13557 - special handling for system tables WALs
> >>> >> > > > > >> - HBASE-13017 - keep table state in meta
> >>> >> > > > > >>
> >>> >> > > > > >> 1.2 was cut off mid-June 2015.. Should be enough time
> since
> >>> >> > > > > >> then
> >>> >> > > for a
> >>> >> > > > > >> minor release.
> >>> >> > > > > >>
> >>> >> > > > > >> Mikhail
> >>> >> > > > > >>
> >>> >> > > > > >> On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 10:56 AM, Enis Söztutar <
> >>> >> > enis.soz@gmail.com
> >>> >> > > >
> >>> >> > > > > >> wrote:
> >>> >> > > > > >>
> >>> >> > > > > >>> What are the "features" in current branch-1 that is not
> >>> there
> >>> >> in
> >>> >> > > 1.2?
> >>> >> > > > > If
> >>> >> > > > > >>> there is none, it is not worth branching yet.
> >>> >> > > > > >>>
> >>> >> > > > > >>> Enis
> >>> >> > > > > >>>
> >>> >> > > > > >>> On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 7:57 PM, Andrew Purtell <
> >>> >> > > > > >> andrew.purtell@gmail.com>
> >>> >> > > > > >>> wrote:
> >>> >> > > > > >>>
> >>> >> > > > > >>>> No, each 0.94.x/0.96.x/98.x was or is a minor release.
> :-)
> >>> >> > > Sometimes
> >>> >> > > > > >> the
> >>> >> > > > > >>>> changes in those releases could all be considered
> "point"
> >>> in
> >>> >> > scope
> >>> >> > > > or
> >>> >> > > > > >>>> effect but not always. Further supporting this point of
> >>> >> > > > > >>>> view,
> >>> >> > when
> >>> >> > > > we
> >>> >> > > > > >>> went
> >>> >> > > > > >>>> from 0.94 to 0.96 it was a major increment, in effect,
> due
> >>> >> > > > > >>>> to
> >>> >> > 'the
> >>> >> > > > > >>>> singularity'.
> >>> >> > > > > >>>>
> >>> >> > > > > >>>> Doing a new minor every month would be more like a
> return
> >>> to
> >>> >> > past
> >>> >> > > > > state
> >>> >> > > > > >>> of
> >>> >> > > > > >>>> affairs, for better or worse, in my humble opinion.
> >>> >> > > > > >>>>
> >>> >> > > > > >>>>>> On Feb 24, 2016, at 7:46 PM, Stack <stack@duboce.net
> >
> >>> >> wrote:
> >>> >> > > > > >>>>>>
> >>> >> > > > > >>>>>> On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 11:50 AM, Elliott Clark <
> >>> >> > > > eclark@apache.org>
> >>> >> > > > > >>>> wrote:
> >>> >> > > > > >>>>>>
> >>> >> > > > > >>>>>> Is it time to branch for 1.3 ?
> >>> >> > > > > >>>>>
> >>> >> > > > > >>>>>
> >>> >> > > > > >>>>>> Sean did a great job getting 1.2 out. However it was
> a
> >>> >> > > > > >>>>>> hard
> >>> >> > > > > >> difficult
> >>> >> > > > > >>>>>> process that I wouldn't wish on anyone. Is it time to
> >>> >> > > > > >>>>>> branch
> >>> >> > for
> >>> >> > > > 1.3
> >>> >> > > > > >>> and
> >>> >> > > > > >>>>>> start the process of stabilizing again so that we can
> >>> get
> >>> >> > > > > >>>>>> a
> >>> >> > > > monthly
> >>> >> > > > > >>>> cadence
> >>> >> > > > > >>>>>> for minor releases going?
> >>> >> > > > > >>>>>
> >>> >> > > > > >>>>>
> >>> >> > > > > >>>>> Monthly cadence for minors is upping the ante. We
> used to
> >>> >> > > > > >>>>> be
> >>> >> > > about
> >>> >> > > > > >>>>> monthly's for point releases.
> >>> >> > > > > >>>>>
> >>> >> > > > > >>>>> +1 for the mighty Mikhail as RM. Sean, please UPS him
> the
> >>> >> > special
> >>> >> > > > > >> robe
> >>> >> > > > > >>>> that
> >>> >> > > > > >>>>> he has to wear while performing his RMness duties.
> >>> >> > > > > >>>>>
> >>> >> > > > > >>>>> St.Ack
> >>> >> > > > > >>
> >>> >> > > > >
> >>> >> > > >
> >>> >> > >
> >>> >> >
> >>> >>
> >>> >
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> Thanks,
> >>> Michael Antonov
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Thanks,
> >> Michael Antonov
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Thanks,
> > Michael Antonov
>
>
>
> --
> busbey
>



-- 
Thanks,
Michael Antonov

Re: Branch for 1.3

[Sean Busbey <bu...@cloudera.com>]

HBASE-15698 is still open and a blocker.

I've been stepping through phoenix + hbase code to chase it down, but
so far haven't pinned it down. If anyone has more familiarity with
Phoenix than me, another set of eyes would be great.

On Sun, May 15, 2016 at 10:19 PM, Mikhail Antonov <ol...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hey guys,
>
> I'm planning to roll first RC for branch 1.3 tomorrow, was holding off on
> the fix for HBASE-15811 to get committed. At the moment I'm not aware of
> any major bugfixes marked for 1.3. I've moved / moving to 1.4 several jiras
> without recent movement in there, like:
>
>  - HBASE-15593 (could still go in 1.3 if committed soon? Seems like no
> objections to it so far)
>  - HBASE-15454 (improvements in date-tiered compactions, waiting for more
> perf testing?)
>  - HBASE-15691 (concurrent modification exception in bucket cache in
> branch-1,
>     this is indeed a bug, but seems like branch-1 have lived without this
> fix for long enough so far)
>
> Ping me on the above if there's movement and desire go get it in.
>
> There're two jiras which should be ready to get committed pretty soon,
> related to interfaces:
>
>  - HBASE-15780 (make AuthUtils public) and
>  - HBASE-15779 (examples for the above).
>
> Let me know if you have any concerns, or anything which could have escaped
> my view and should go to 1.3.
>
> Thanks!
> Mikhail
>
>
>
> There are few jiras I've kicked out of 1.3 schedule:
>
>   - HBASE-15454, improvements for date-tiered compactions waiting for more
> perf testing
>
>
>
> So
>
> On Fri, May 6, 2016 at 10:32 AM, Mikhail Antonov <ol...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Heads up on where we are with branch-1.3.
>>
>> Lots of stuff we had outstanding 10 days ago got committed and now we are
>> down to just 3 bugfixes
>> and 2 features which I'm looking to get in, all have patches in review. I
>> hope we could get them in
>> in next few days and then I can start preparing RCs.
>>
>> Bugfixes:
>>
>> HBASE-15691 Port HBASE-10205 (ConcurrentModificationException in
>> BucketAllocator) to branch-1 (Andrew/Stack let me know if I can help here?
>> Any more performance testing we wait for?)
>> HBASE-15615 Wrong sleep time when RegionServerCallable need retry (almost
>> there, just some more tests around would be great)
>> HBASE-15593 Time limit of scanning should be offered by client (Stack -
>> should we get it in or you're looking for more tests?)
>>
>> Features:
>>
>> HBASE-15454 Archive store files older than max age (Duo / Heng / Enis do
>> we wait for more reviews/tests?)
>> HBASE-15773 CellCounter improvements (should be pretty straightforward to
>> get in)
>>
>> Let me know if I missed anything.
>>
>> -Mikhail
>>
>> On Wed, Apr 27, 2016 at 10:20 PM, Mikhail Antonov <ol...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Thanks!
>>>
>>> -Mikhail
>>>
>>> On 4/27/16, ramkrishna vasudevan <ra...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>> > I saw Andy's comment. Will create a patch for trunk also and will commit
>>> > both together.
>>> >
>>> > Regards
>>> > Ram
>>> >
>>> > On Thu, Apr 28, 2016 at 10:39 AM, Mikhail Antonov <an...@apache.org>
>>> > wrote:
>>> >
>>> >> Thanks Ram! It seems like that's fixed now (the problem when we don't
>>> >> compact often enough in TestHRegion).
>>> >>
>>> >> On Wed, Apr 27, 2016 at 4:19 AM, ramkrishna vasudevan <
>>> >> ramkrishna.s.vasudevan@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >> > >>Also need to figure out situation around HBASE-14970 - HBASE-13082
>>> >> > - HBASE-15697,
>>> >> > Regarding this - HBASE-14970 is found in both branch-1 and
>>> branch-1.3.
>>> >> The
>>> >> > patch for HBASE-15697 solves the ulimit issue with respect number of
>>> >> > open
>>> >> > files. Once Andrew verifies it we can commit the patch and you can
>>> have
>>> >> > that in the branch-1.3 release IMHO.
>>> >> >
>>> >> > Thanks Mikhail for the heads up.
>>> >> >
>>> >> > Regards
>>> >> > Ram
>>> >> >
>>> >> > On Wed, Apr 27, 2016 at 2:40 PM, Mikhail Antonov <antonov@apache.org
>>> >
>>> >> > wrote:
>>> >> >
>>> >> > > Ok, I think it's time to bring up this thread again. Let's see
>>> where
>>> >> > > we
>>> >> > > are.
>>> >> > >
>>> >> > > So, outstanding -
>>> >> > >
>>> >> > > Significant bugs (looked through jira filters):
>>> >> > >  - Several bugfixes/improvements in HBase client, often related to
>>> >> > > rpc/retries, went in recently or about to go in.
>>> >> > >   * HBASE-15645, when we don't use rpc timeouts properly, went in
>>> >> > (pending
>>> >> > > addendum for nits)
>>> >> > >   * HBASE-15658, when we unnecessarily clear MetaCache on retries,
>>> >> > > went
>>> >> > in
>>> >> > > on 1.3+,
>>> >> > >      probably should go in 1.2 as well, see discussion there.
>>> >> > >  * HBASE-15593, and HBASE-15615 - those should be addressed soon I
>>> >> guess
>>> >> > >
>>> >> > >  - Bucket cache fixes improvements, HBASE-15240 and subtasks, would
>>> >> > > be
>>> >> > good
>>> >> > > to pull in as much as possible.
>>> >> > >  - HBASE-15703, bug in deadline rpc scheduler, I'd need to fix it
>>> >> before
>>> >> > > the release
>>> >> > >
>>> >> > > Any other very-nice-to-get-in fixes we want?
>>> >> > >
>>> >> > > Also need to figure out situation around HBASE-14970 - HBASE-13082
>>> >> > > - HBASE-15697,
>>> >> > > I kind of lost track what was committed/reverted/re-aplied on which
>>> >> > branch.
>>> >> > > @Andrew, Stack, Ram
>>> >> > >
>>> >> > > Features:
>>> >> > >    * Date-tiered compactions. I'm looking at umbrella jira for d-t
>>> >> > > compactions, HBASE-15339 <
>>> >> > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-15339>
>>> >> > > ,
>>> >> > >       looks like there's one big item left on the list
>>> (HBASE-15454,
>>> >> > > archive StoreFile older than max age),
>>> >> > >       and it's being actively worked on / reviewed, and another
>>> one -
>>> >> > > documentation task, so I assume it's all good
>>> >> > >       and we get all date-tiers compactions improvements for 1.3.
>>> >> > >   * Spark connector. Haven't seen much activity on it lately. Sean
>>> -
>>> >> what
>>> >> > > do you think about HBASE-14160?
>>> >> > >      I'm inclined to push it to 1.4 (or whatever next release will
>>> >> > > be)
>>> >> if
>>> >> > > there're no takers at this point.
>>> >> > >
>>> >> > >
>>> >> > > Thanks!
>>> >> > > Mikhail
>>> >> > >
>>> >> > >
>>> >> > >
>>> >> > > On Fri, Apr 22, 2016 at 2:22 PM, Ted Yu <yu...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>> >> > >
>>> >> > > > bq. There are several patches
>>> >> > > >
>>> >> > > > Let us know the JIRA numbers.
>>> >> > > > I can help with reviewing if needed.
>>> >> > > >
>>> >> > > > Cheers
>>> >> > > >
>>> >> > > > On Fri, Apr 22, 2016 at 2:18 PM, Mikhail Antonov <
>>> >> olorinbant@gmail.com
>>> >> > >
>>> >> > > > wrote:
>>> >> > > >
>>> >> > > > > Last time I've tried to run 1.3 builds there were issues with
>>> >> > balancer,
>>> >> > > > > which are fixed now. There are several patches I definitely
>>> would
>>> >> > like
>>> >> > > to
>>> >> > > > > pull in, other than that I feel we are pretty close. I'll start
>>> >> > > spinning
>>> >> > > > > internal builds in a few days and if things look good will
>>> start
>>> >> > > > preparing
>>> >> > > > > RC's next week or so.
>>> >> > > > >
>>> >> > > > > I guess we are getting to feature-complete state, I'll walk
>>> >> > > > > through
>>> >> > the
>>> >> > > > > jiras and send detailed email over weekend.
>>> >> > > > >
>>> >> > > > > Thanks!
>>> >> > > > > Mikhail
>>> >> > > > >
>>> >> > > > > > On Apr 22, 2016, at 8:13 AM, Ted Yu <yu...@gmail.com>
>>> >> > > > > > wrote:
>>> >> > > > > >
>>> >> > > > > > Mikhail:
>>> >> > > > > > Any plan when to spin 1.3 RC0 ?
>>> >> > > > > >
>>> >> > > > > > HBaseCon is not very far.
>>> >> > > > > >
>>> >> > > > > > I was wondering if 1.3 release can be done before HBaseCon.
>>> >> > > > > >
>>> >> > > > > > Cheers
>>> >> > > > > >
>>> >> > > > > > On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 12:54 PM, Mikhail Antonov <
>>> >> > > antonov@apache.org>
>>> >> > > > > > wrote:
>>> >> > > > > >
>>> >> > > > > >> To me it's not really about individual big features
>>> (besides,
>>> >> big
>>> >> > > > > features
>>> >> > > > > >> might be hard to accommodate in a minor release), but enough
>>> >> good
>>> >> > > > > things to
>>> >> > > > > >> justify minor release.
>>> >> > > > > >>
>>> >> > > > > >> What we can have (unless I'm missing something):
>>> >> > > > > >>
>>> >> > > > > >> [Already done or to be further improved]
>>> >> > > > > >> - HBASE-15177 - more GC-friendly allocations in RPC services
>>> >> > > > > >> - HBASE-14457 - multi WAL improvements
>>> >> > > > > >> - HBASE-15222 - optimizations in metrics system, some more
>>> >> metrics
>>> >> > > > > >> (like HBASE-15135, HBASE-15068)
>>> >> > > > > >> - HBASE-15306, HBASE-15136 - improving call queues handling
>>> >> > > > > >>
>>> >> > > > > >> [To be reviewed?):
>>> >> > > > > >> - HBASE-15181 - date based tiered compactions (?)
>>> >> > > > > >> - HBASE-11290 - unlock RegionStates. There was a patch
>>> update
>>> >> > > > relatively
>>> >> > > > > >> recently to it based on comments.
>>> >> > > > > >>
>>> >> > > > > >> [Possible?]
>>> >> > > > > >> - HBASE-13557 - special handling for system tables WALs
>>> >> > > > > >> - HBASE-13017 - keep table state in meta
>>> >> > > > > >>
>>> >> > > > > >> 1.2 was cut off mid-June 2015.. Should be enough time since
>>> >> > > > > >> then
>>> >> > > for a
>>> >> > > > > >> minor release.
>>> >> > > > > >>
>>> >> > > > > >> Mikhail
>>> >> > > > > >>
>>> >> > > > > >> On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 10:56 AM, Enis Söztutar <
>>> >> > enis.soz@gmail.com
>>> >> > > >
>>> >> > > > > >> wrote:
>>> >> > > > > >>
>>> >> > > > > >>> What are the "features" in current branch-1 that is not
>>> there
>>> >> in
>>> >> > > 1.2?
>>> >> > > > > If
>>> >> > > > > >>> there is none, it is not worth branching yet.
>>> >> > > > > >>>
>>> >> > > > > >>> Enis
>>> >> > > > > >>>
>>> >> > > > > >>> On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 7:57 PM, Andrew Purtell <
>>> >> > > > > >> andrew.purtell@gmail.com>
>>> >> > > > > >>> wrote:
>>> >> > > > > >>>
>>> >> > > > > >>>> No, each 0.94.x/0.96.x/98.x was or is a minor release. :-)
>>> >> > > Sometimes
>>> >> > > > > >> the
>>> >> > > > > >>>> changes in those releases could all be considered "point"
>>> in
>>> >> > scope
>>> >> > > > or
>>> >> > > > > >>>> effect but not always. Further supporting this point of
>>> >> > > > > >>>> view,
>>> >> > when
>>> >> > > > we
>>> >> > > > > >>> went
>>> >> > > > > >>>> from 0.94 to 0.96 it was a major increment, in effect, due
>>> >> > > > > >>>> to
>>> >> > 'the
>>> >> > > > > >>>> singularity'.
>>> >> > > > > >>>>
>>> >> > > > > >>>> Doing a new minor every month would be more like a return
>>> to
>>> >> > past
>>> >> > > > > state
>>> >> > > > > >>> of
>>> >> > > > > >>>> affairs, for better or worse, in my humble opinion.
>>> >> > > > > >>>>
>>> >> > > > > >>>>>> On Feb 24, 2016, at 7:46 PM, Stack <st...@duboce.net>
>>> >> wrote:
>>> >> > > > > >>>>>>
>>> >> > > > > >>>>>> On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 11:50 AM, Elliott Clark <
>>> >> > > > eclark@apache.org>
>>> >> > > > > >>>> wrote:
>>> >> > > > > >>>>>>
>>> >> > > > > >>>>>> Is it time to branch for 1.3 ?
>>> >> > > > > >>>>>
>>> >> > > > > >>>>>
>>> >> > > > > >>>>>> Sean did a great job getting 1.2 out. However it was a
>>> >> > > > > >>>>>> hard
>>> >> > > > > >> difficult
>>> >> > > > > >>>>>> process that I wouldn't wish on anyone. Is it time to
>>> >> > > > > >>>>>> branch
>>> >> > for
>>> >> > > > 1.3
>>> >> > > > > >>> and
>>> >> > > > > >>>>>> start the process of stabilizing again so that we can
>>> get
>>> >> > > > > >>>>>> a
>>> >> > > > monthly
>>> >> > > > > >>>> cadence
>>> >> > > > > >>>>>> for minor releases going?
>>> >> > > > > >>>>>
>>> >> > > > > >>>>>
>>> >> > > > > >>>>> Monthly cadence for minors is upping the ante. We used to
>>> >> > > > > >>>>> be
>>> >> > > about
>>> >> > > > > >>>>> monthly's for point releases.
>>> >> > > > > >>>>>
>>> >> > > > > >>>>> +1 for the mighty Mikhail as RM. Sean, please UPS him the
>>> >> > special
>>> >> > > > > >> robe
>>> >> > > > > >>>> that
>>> >> > > > > >>>>> he has to wear while performing his RMness duties.
>>> >> > > > > >>>>>
>>> >> > > > > >>>>> St.Ack
>>> >> > > > > >>
>>> >> > > > >
>>> >> > > >
>>> >> > >
>>> >> >
>>> >>
>>> >
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Thanks,
>>> Michael Antonov
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Thanks,
>> Michael Antonov
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Thanks,
> Michael Antonov



-- 
busbey

Re: Branch for 1.3

[Mikhail Antonov <ol...@gmail.com>]

Hey guys,

I'm planning to roll first RC for branch 1.3 tomorrow, was holding off on
the fix for HBASE-15811 to get committed. At the moment I'm not aware of
any major bugfixes marked for 1.3. I've moved / moving to 1.4 several jiras
without recent movement in there, like:

 - HBASE-15593 (could still go in 1.3 if committed soon? Seems like no
objections to it so far)
 - HBASE-15454 (improvements in date-tiered compactions, waiting for more
perf testing?)
 - HBASE-15691 (concurrent modification exception in bucket cache in
branch-1,
    this is indeed a bug, but seems like branch-1 have lived without this
fix for long enough so far)

Ping me on the above if there's movement and desire go get it in.

There're two jiras which should be ready to get committed pretty soon,
related to interfaces:

 - HBASE-15780 (make AuthUtils public) and
 - HBASE-15779 (examples for the above).

Let me know if you have any concerns, or anything which could have escaped
my view and should go to 1.3.

Thanks!
Mikhail



There are few jiras I've kicked out of 1.3 schedule:

  - HBASE-15454, improvements for date-tiered compactions waiting for more
perf testing



So

On Fri, May 6, 2016 at 10:32 AM, Mikhail Antonov <ol...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Heads up on where we are with branch-1.3.
>
> Lots of stuff we had outstanding 10 days ago got committed and now we are
> down to just 3 bugfixes
> and 2 features which I'm looking to get in, all have patches in review. I
> hope we could get them in
> in next few days and then I can start preparing RCs.
>
> Bugfixes:
>
> HBASE-15691 Port HBASE-10205 (ConcurrentModificationException in
> BucketAllocator) to branch-1 (Andrew/Stack let me know if I can help here?
> Any more performance testing we wait for?)
> HBASE-15615 Wrong sleep time when RegionServerCallable need retry (almost
> there, just some more tests around would be great)
> HBASE-15593 Time limit of scanning should be offered by client (Stack -
> should we get it in or you're looking for more tests?)
>
> Features:
>
> HBASE-15454 Archive store files older than max age (Duo / Heng / Enis do
> we wait for more reviews/tests?)
> HBASE-15773 CellCounter improvements (should be pretty straightforward to
> get in)
>
> Let me know if I missed anything.
>
> -Mikhail
>
> On Wed, Apr 27, 2016 at 10:20 PM, Mikhail Antonov <ol...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Thanks!
>>
>> -Mikhail
>>
>> On 4/27/16, ramkrishna vasudevan <ra...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> > I saw Andy's comment. Will create a patch for trunk also and will commit
>> > both together.
>> >
>> > Regards
>> > Ram
>> >
>> > On Thu, Apr 28, 2016 at 10:39 AM, Mikhail Antonov <an...@apache.org>
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> >> Thanks Ram! It seems like that's fixed now (the problem when we don't
>> >> compact often enough in TestHRegion).
>> >>
>> >> On Wed, Apr 27, 2016 at 4:19 AM, ramkrishna vasudevan <
>> >> ramkrishna.s.vasudevan@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > >>Also need to figure out situation around HBASE-14970 - HBASE-13082
>> >> > - HBASE-15697,
>> >> > Regarding this - HBASE-14970 is found in both branch-1 and
>> branch-1.3.
>> >> The
>> >> > patch for HBASE-15697 solves the ulimit issue with respect number of
>> >> > open
>> >> > files. Once Andrew verifies it we can commit the patch and you can
>> have
>> >> > that in the branch-1.3 release IMHO.
>> >> >
>> >> > Thanks Mikhail for the heads up.
>> >> >
>> >> > Regards
>> >> > Ram
>> >> >
>> >> > On Wed, Apr 27, 2016 at 2:40 PM, Mikhail Antonov <antonov@apache.org
>> >
>> >> > wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > > Ok, I think it's time to bring up this thread again. Let's see
>> where
>> >> > > we
>> >> > > are.
>> >> > >
>> >> > > So, outstanding -
>> >> > >
>> >> > > Significant bugs (looked through jira filters):
>> >> > >  - Several bugfixes/improvements in HBase client, often related to
>> >> > > rpc/retries, went in recently or about to go in.
>> >> > >   * HBASE-15645, when we don't use rpc timeouts properly, went in
>> >> > (pending
>> >> > > addendum for nits)
>> >> > >   * HBASE-15658, when we unnecessarily clear MetaCache on retries,
>> >> > > went
>> >> > in
>> >> > > on 1.3+,
>> >> > >      probably should go in 1.2 as well, see discussion there.
>> >> > >  * HBASE-15593, and HBASE-15615 - those should be addressed soon I
>> >> guess
>> >> > >
>> >> > >  - Bucket cache fixes improvements, HBASE-15240 and subtasks, would
>> >> > > be
>> >> > good
>> >> > > to pull in as much as possible.
>> >> > >  - HBASE-15703, bug in deadline rpc scheduler, I'd need to fix it
>> >> before
>> >> > > the release
>> >> > >
>> >> > > Any other very-nice-to-get-in fixes we want?
>> >> > >
>> >> > > Also need to figure out situation around HBASE-14970 - HBASE-13082
>> >> > > - HBASE-15697,
>> >> > > I kind of lost track what was committed/reverted/re-aplied on which
>> >> > branch.
>> >> > > @Andrew, Stack, Ram
>> >> > >
>> >> > > Features:
>> >> > >    * Date-tiered compactions. I'm looking at umbrella jira for d-t
>> >> > > compactions, HBASE-15339 <
>> >> > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-15339>
>> >> > > ,
>> >> > >       looks like there's one big item left on the list
>> (HBASE-15454,
>> >> > > archive StoreFile older than max age),
>> >> > >       and it's being actively worked on / reviewed, and another
>> one -
>> >> > > documentation task, so I assume it's all good
>> >> > >       and we get all date-tiers compactions improvements for 1.3.
>> >> > >   * Spark connector. Haven't seen much activity on it lately. Sean
>> -
>> >> what
>> >> > > do you think about HBASE-14160?
>> >> > >      I'm inclined to push it to 1.4 (or whatever next release will
>> >> > > be)
>> >> if
>> >> > > there're no takers at this point.
>> >> > >
>> >> > >
>> >> > > Thanks!
>> >> > > Mikhail
>> >> > >
>> >> > >
>> >> > >
>> >> > > On Fri, Apr 22, 2016 at 2:22 PM, Ted Yu <yu...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> >> > >
>> >> > > > bq. There are several patches
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > Let us know the JIRA numbers.
>> >> > > > I can help with reviewing if needed.
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > Cheers
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > On Fri, Apr 22, 2016 at 2:18 PM, Mikhail Antonov <
>> >> olorinbant@gmail.com
>> >> > >
>> >> > > > wrote:
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > > Last time I've tried to run 1.3 builds there were issues with
>> >> > balancer,
>> >> > > > > which are fixed now. There are several patches I definitely
>> would
>> >> > like
>> >> > > to
>> >> > > > > pull in, other than that I feel we are pretty close. I'll start
>> >> > > spinning
>> >> > > > > internal builds in a few days and if things look good will
>> start
>> >> > > > preparing
>> >> > > > > RC's next week or so.
>> >> > > > >
>> >> > > > > I guess we are getting to feature-complete state, I'll walk
>> >> > > > > through
>> >> > the
>> >> > > > > jiras and send detailed email over weekend.
>> >> > > > >
>> >> > > > > Thanks!
>> >> > > > > Mikhail
>> >> > > > >
>> >> > > > > > On Apr 22, 2016, at 8:13 AM, Ted Yu <yu...@gmail.com>
>> >> > > > > > wrote:
>> >> > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > Mikhail:
>> >> > > > > > Any plan when to spin 1.3 RC0 ?
>> >> > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > HBaseCon is not very far.
>> >> > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > I was wondering if 1.3 release can be done before HBaseCon.
>> >> > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > Cheers
>> >> > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 12:54 PM, Mikhail Antonov <
>> >> > > antonov@apache.org>
>> >> > > > > > wrote:
>> >> > > > > >
>> >> > > > > >> To me it's not really about individual big features
>> (besides,
>> >> big
>> >> > > > > features
>> >> > > > > >> might be hard to accommodate in a minor release), but enough
>> >> good
>> >> > > > > things to
>> >> > > > > >> justify minor release.
>> >> > > > > >>
>> >> > > > > >> What we can have (unless I'm missing something):
>> >> > > > > >>
>> >> > > > > >> [Already done or to be further improved]
>> >> > > > > >> - HBASE-15177 - more GC-friendly allocations in RPC services
>> >> > > > > >> - HBASE-14457 - multi WAL improvements
>> >> > > > > >> - HBASE-15222 - optimizations in metrics system, some more
>> >> metrics
>> >> > > > > >> (like HBASE-15135, HBASE-15068)
>> >> > > > > >> - HBASE-15306, HBASE-15136 - improving call queues handling
>> >> > > > > >>
>> >> > > > > >> [To be reviewed?):
>> >> > > > > >> - HBASE-15181 - date based tiered compactions (?)
>> >> > > > > >> - HBASE-11290 - unlock RegionStates. There was a patch
>> update
>> >> > > > relatively
>> >> > > > > >> recently to it based on comments.
>> >> > > > > >>
>> >> > > > > >> [Possible?]
>> >> > > > > >> - HBASE-13557 - special handling for system tables WALs
>> >> > > > > >> - HBASE-13017 - keep table state in meta
>> >> > > > > >>
>> >> > > > > >> 1.2 was cut off mid-June 2015.. Should be enough time since
>> >> > > > > >> then
>> >> > > for a
>> >> > > > > >> minor release.
>> >> > > > > >>
>> >> > > > > >> Mikhail
>> >> > > > > >>
>> >> > > > > >> On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 10:56 AM, Enis Söztutar <
>> >> > enis.soz@gmail.com
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > > >> wrote:
>> >> > > > > >>
>> >> > > > > >>> What are the "features" in current branch-1 that is not
>> there
>> >> in
>> >> > > 1.2?
>> >> > > > > If
>> >> > > > > >>> there is none, it is not worth branching yet.
>> >> > > > > >>>
>> >> > > > > >>> Enis
>> >> > > > > >>>
>> >> > > > > >>> On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 7:57 PM, Andrew Purtell <
>> >> > > > > >> andrew.purtell@gmail.com>
>> >> > > > > >>> wrote:
>> >> > > > > >>>
>> >> > > > > >>>> No, each 0.94.x/0.96.x/98.x was or is a minor release. :-)
>> >> > > Sometimes
>> >> > > > > >> the
>> >> > > > > >>>> changes in those releases could all be considered "point"
>> in
>> >> > scope
>> >> > > > or
>> >> > > > > >>>> effect but not always. Further supporting this point of
>> >> > > > > >>>> view,
>> >> > when
>> >> > > > we
>> >> > > > > >>> went
>> >> > > > > >>>> from 0.94 to 0.96 it was a major increment, in effect, due
>> >> > > > > >>>> to
>> >> > 'the
>> >> > > > > >>>> singularity'.
>> >> > > > > >>>>
>> >> > > > > >>>> Doing a new minor every month would be more like a return
>> to
>> >> > past
>> >> > > > > state
>> >> > > > > >>> of
>> >> > > > > >>>> affairs, for better or worse, in my humble opinion.
>> >> > > > > >>>>
>> >> > > > > >>>>>> On Feb 24, 2016, at 7:46 PM, Stack <st...@duboce.net>
>> >> wrote:
>> >> > > > > >>>>>>
>> >> > > > > >>>>>> On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 11:50 AM, Elliott Clark <
>> >> > > > eclark@apache.org>
>> >> > > > > >>>> wrote:
>> >> > > > > >>>>>>
>> >> > > > > >>>>>> Is it time to branch for 1.3 ?
>> >> > > > > >>>>>
>> >> > > > > >>>>>
>> >> > > > > >>>>>> Sean did a great job getting 1.2 out. However it was a
>> >> > > > > >>>>>> hard
>> >> > > > > >> difficult
>> >> > > > > >>>>>> process that I wouldn't wish on anyone. Is it time to
>> >> > > > > >>>>>> branch
>> >> > for
>> >> > > > 1.3
>> >> > > > > >>> and
>> >> > > > > >>>>>> start the process of stabilizing again so that we can
>> get
>> >> > > > > >>>>>> a
>> >> > > > monthly
>> >> > > > > >>>> cadence
>> >> > > > > >>>>>> for minor releases going?
>> >> > > > > >>>>>
>> >> > > > > >>>>>
>> >> > > > > >>>>> Monthly cadence for minors is upping the ante. We used to
>> >> > > > > >>>>> be
>> >> > > about
>> >> > > > > >>>>> monthly's for point releases.
>> >> > > > > >>>>>
>> >> > > > > >>>>> +1 for the mighty Mikhail as RM. Sean, please UPS him the
>> >> > special
>> >> > > > > >> robe
>> >> > > > > >>>> that
>> >> > > > > >>>>> he has to wear while performing his RMness duties.
>> >> > > > > >>>>>
>> >> > > > > >>>>> St.Ack
>> >> > > > > >>
>> >> > > > >
>> >> > > >
>> >> > >
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >
>>
>>
>> --
>> Thanks,
>> Michael Antonov
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Thanks,
> Michael Antonov
>



-- 
Thanks,
Michael Antonov

Re: Branch for 1.3

[Mikhail Antonov <ol...@gmail.com>]

Heads up on where we are with branch-1.3.

Lots of stuff we had outstanding 10 days ago got committed and now we are
down to just 3 bugfixes
and 2 features which I'm looking to get in, all have patches in review. I
hope we could get them in
in next few days and then I can start preparing RCs.

Bugfixes:

HBASE-15691 Port HBASE-10205 (ConcurrentModificationException in
BucketAllocator) to branch-1 (Andrew/Stack let me know if I can help here?
Any more performance testing we wait for?)
HBASE-15615 Wrong sleep time when RegionServerCallable need retry (almost
there, just some more tests around would be great)
HBASE-15593 Time limit of scanning should be offered by client (Stack -
should we get it in or you're looking for more tests?)

Features:

HBASE-15454 Archive store files older than max age (Duo / Heng / Enis do we
wait for more reviews/tests?)
HBASE-15773 CellCounter improvements (should be pretty straightforward to
get in)

Let me know if I missed anything.

-Mikhail

On Wed, Apr 27, 2016 at 10:20 PM, Mikhail Antonov <ol...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Thanks!
>
> -Mikhail
>
> On 4/27/16, ramkrishna vasudevan <ra...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I saw Andy's comment. Will create a patch for trunk also and will commit
> > both together.
> >
> > Regards
> > Ram
> >
> > On Thu, Apr 28, 2016 at 10:39 AM, Mikhail Antonov <an...@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Thanks Ram! It seems like that's fixed now (the problem when we don't
> >> compact often enough in TestHRegion).
> >>
> >> On Wed, Apr 27, 2016 at 4:19 AM, ramkrishna vasudevan <
> >> ramkrishna.s.vasudevan@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> > >>Also need to figure out situation around HBASE-14970 - HBASE-13082
> >> > - HBASE-15697,
> >> > Regarding this - HBASE-14970 is found in both branch-1 and branch-1.3.
> >> The
> >> > patch for HBASE-15697 solves the ulimit issue with respect number of
> >> > open
> >> > files. Once Andrew verifies it we can commit the patch and you can
> have
> >> > that in the branch-1.3 release IMHO.
> >> >
> >> > Thanks Mikhail for the heads up.
> >> >
> >> > Regards
> >> > Ram
> >> >
> >> > On Wed, Apr 27, 2016 at 2:40 PM, Mikhail Antonov <an...@apache.org>
> >> > wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > Ok, I think it's time to bring up this thread again. Let's see where
> >> > > we
> >> > > are.
> >> > >
> >> > > So, outstanding -
> >> > >
> >> > > Significant bugs (looked through jira filters):
> >> > >  - Several bugfixes/improvements in HBase client, often related to
> >> > > rpc/retries, went in recently or about to go in.
> >> > >   * HBASE-15645, when we don't use rpc timeouts properly, went in
> >> > (pending
> >> > > addendum for nits)
> >> > >   * HBASE-15658, when we unnecessarily clear MetaCache on retries,
> >> > > went
> >> > in
> >> > > on 1.3+,
> >> > >      probably should go in 1.2 as well, see discussion there.
> >> > >  * HBASE-15593, and HBASE-15615 - those should be addressed soon I
> >> guess
> >> > >
> >> > >  - Bucket cache fixes improvements, HBASE-15240 and subtasks, would
> >> > > be
> >> > good
> >> > > to pull in as much as possible.
> >> > >  - HBASE-15703, bug in deadline rpc scheduler, I'd need to fix it
> >> before
> >> > > the release
> >> > >
> >> > > Any other very-nice-to-get-in fixes we want?
> >> > >
> >> > > Also need to figure out situation around HBASE-14970 - HBASE-13082
> >> > > - HBASE-15697,
> >> > > I kind of lost track what was committed/reverted/re-aplied on which
> >> > branch.
> >> > > @Andrew, Stack, Ram
> >> > >
> >> > > Features:
> >> > >    * Date-tiered compactions. I'm looking at umbrella jira for d-t
> >> > > compactions, HBASE-15339 <
> >> > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-15339>
> >> > > ,
> >> > >       looks like there's one big item left on the list (HBASE-15454,
> >> > > archive StoreFile older than max age),
> >> > >       and it's being actively worked on / reviewed, and another one
> -
> >> > > documentation task, so I assume it's all good
> >> > >       and we get all date-tiers compactions improvements for 1.3.
> >> > >   * Spark connector. Haven't seen much activity on it lately. Sean -
> >> what
> >> > > do you think about HBASE-14160?
> >> > >      I'm inclined to push it to 1.4 (or whatever next release will
> >> > > be)
> >> if
> >> > > there're no takers at this point.
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > Thanks!
> >> > > Mikhail
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > On Fri, Apr 22, 2016 at 2:22 PM, Ted Yu <yu...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > > > bq. There are several patches
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Let us know the JIRA numbers.
> >> > > > I can help with reviewing if needed.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Cheers
> >> > > >
> >> > > > On Fri, Apr 22, 2016 at 2:18 PM, Mikhail Antonov <
> >> olorinbant@gmail.com
> >> > >
> >> > > > wrote:
> >> > > >
> >> > > > > Last time I've tried to run 1.3 builds there were issues with
> >> > balancer,
> >> > > > > which are fixed now. There are several patches I definitely
> would
> >> > like
> >> > > to
> >> > > > > pull in, other than that I feel we are pretty close. I'll start
> >> > > spinning
> >> > > > > internal builds in a few days and if things look good will start
> >> > > > preparing
> >> > > > > RC's next week or so.
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > I guess we are getting to feature-complete state, I'll walk
> >> > > > > through
> >> > the
> >> > > > > jiras and send detailed email over weekend.
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > Thanks!
> >> > > > > Mikhail
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > > On Apr 22, 2016, at 8:13 AM, Ted Yu <yu...@gmail.com>
> >> > > > > > wrote:
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > Mikhail:
> >> > > > > > Any plan when to spin 1.3 RC0 ?
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > HBaseCon is not very far.
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > I was wondering if 1.3 release can be done before HBaseCon.
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > Cheers
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 12:54 PM, Mikhail Antonov <
> >> > > antonov@apache.org>
> >> > > > > > wrote:
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > >> To me it's not really about individual big features (besides,
> >> big
> >> > > > > features
> >> > > > > >> might be hard to accommodate in a minor release), but enough
> >> good
> >> > > > > things to
> >> > > > > >> justify minor release.
> >> > > > > >>
> >> > > > > >> What we can have (unless I'm missing something):
> >> > > > > >>
> >> > > > > >> [Already done or to be further improved]
> >> > > > > >> - HBASE-15177 - more GC-friendly allocations in RPC services
> >> > > > > >> - HBASE-14457 - multi WAL improvements
> >> > > > > >> - HBASE-15222 - optimizations in metrics system, some more
> >> metrics
> >> > > > > >> (like HBASE-15135, HBASE-15068)
> >> > > > > >> - HBASE-15306, HBASE-15136 - improving call queues handling
> >> > > > > >>
> >> > > > > >> [To be reviewed?):
> >> > > > > >> - HBASE-15181 - date based tiered compactions (?)
> >> > > > > >> - HBASE-11290 - unlock RegionStates. There was a patch update
> >> > > > relatively
> >> > > > > >> recently to it based on comments.
> >> > > > > >>
> >> > > > > >> [Possible?]
> >> > > > > >> - HBASE-13557 - special handling for system tables WALs
> >> > > > > >> - HBASE-13017 - keep table state in meta
> >> > > > > >>
> >> > > > > >> 1.2 was cut off mid-June 2015.. Should be enough time since
> >> > > > > >> then
> >> > > for a
> >> > > > > >> minor release.
> >> > > > > >>
> >> > > > > >> Mikhail
> >> > > > > >>
> >> > > > > >> On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 10:56 AM, Enis Söztutar <
> >> > enis.soz@gmail.com
> >> > > >
> >> > > > > >> wrote:
> >> > > > > >>
> >> > > > > >>> What are the "features" in current branch-1 that is not
> there
> >> in
> >> > > 1.2?
> >> > > > > If
> >> > > > > >>> there is none, it is not worth branching yet.
> >> > > > > >>>
> >> > > > > >>> Enis
> >> > > > > >>>
> >> > > > > >>> On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 7:57 PM, Andrew Purtell <
> >> > > > > >> andrew.purtell@gmail.com>
> >> > > > > >>> wrote:
> >> > > > > >>>
> >> > > > > >>>> No, each 0.94.x/0.96.x/98.x was or is a minor release. :-)
> >> > > Sometimes
> >> > > > > >> the
> >> > > > > >>>> changes in those releases could all be considered "point"
> in
> >> > scope
> >> > > > or
> >> > > > > >>>> effect but not always. Further supporting this point of
> >> > > > > >>>> view,
> >> > when
> >> > > > we
> >> > > > > >>> went
> >> > > > > >>>> from 0.94 to 0.96 it was a major increment, in effect, due
> >> > > > > >>>> to
> >> > 'the
> >> > > > > >>>> singularity'.
> >> > > > > >>>>
> >> > > > > >>>> Doing a new minor every month would be more like a return
> to
> >> > past
> >> > > > > state
> >> > > > > >>> of
> >> > > > > >>>> affairs, for better or worse, in my humble opinion.
> >> > > > > >>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>> On Feb 24, 2016, at 7:46 PM, Stack <st...@duboce.net>
> >> wrote:
> >> > > > > >>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>> On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 11:50 AM, Elliott Clark <
> >> > > > eclark@apache.org>
> >> > > > > >>>> wrote:
> >> > > > > >>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>> Is it time to branch for 1.3 ?
> >> > > > > >>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>> Sean did a great job getting 1.2 out. However it was a
> >> > > > > >>>>>> hard
> >> > > > > >> difficult
> >> > > > > >>>>>> process that I wouldn't wish on anyone. Is it time to
> >> > > > > >>>>>> branch
> >> > for
> >> > > > 1.3
> >> > > > > >>> and
> >> > > > > >>>>>> start the process of stabilizing again so that we can get
> >> > > > > >>>>>> a
> >> > > > monthly
> >> > > > > >>>> cadence
> >> > > > > >>>>>> for minor releases going?
> >> > > > > >>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>> Monthly cadence for minors is upping the ante. We used to
> >> > > > > >>>>> be
> >> > > about
> >> > > > > >>>>> monthly's for point releases.
> >> > > > > >>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>> +1 for the mighty Mikhail as RM. Sean, please UPS him the
> >> > special
> >> > > > > >> robe
> >> > > > > >>>> that
> >> > > > > >>>>> he has to wear while performing his RMness duties.
> >> > > > > >>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>> St.Ack
> >> > > > > >>
> >> > > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > >
> >> >
> >>
> >
>
>
> --
> Thanks,
> Michael Antonov
>



-- 
Thanks,
Michael Antonov

Re: Branch for 1.3

[Mikhail Antonov <ol...@gmail.com>]

Thanks!

-Mikhail

On 4/27/16, ramkrishna vasudevan <ra...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I saw Andy's comment. Will create a patch for trunk also and will commit
> both together.
>
> Regards
> Ram
>
> On Thu, Apr 28, 2016 at 10:39 AM, Mikhail Antonov <an...@apache.org>
> wrote:
>
>> Thanks Ram! It seems like that's fixed now (the problem when we don't
>> compact often enough in TestHRegion).
>>
>> On Wed, Apr 27, 2016 at 4:19 AM, ramkrishna vasudevan <
>> ramkrishna.s.vasudevan@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > >>Also need to figure out situation around HBASE-14970 - HBASE-13082
>> > - HBASE-15697,
>> > Regarding this - HBASE-14970 is found in both branch-1 and branch-1.3.
>> The
>> > patch for HBASE-15697 solves the ulimit issue with respect number of
>> > open
>> > files. Once Andrew verifies it we can commit the patch and you can have
>> > that in the branch-1.3 release IMHO.
>> >
>> > Thanks Mikhail for the heads up.
>> >
>> > Regards
>> > Ram
>> >
>> > On Wed, Apr 27, 2016 at 2:40 PM, Mikhail Antonov <an...@apache.org>
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> > > Ok, I think it's time to bring up this thread again. Let's see where
>> > > we
>> > > are.
>> > >
>> > > So, outstanding -
>> > >
>> > > Significant bugs (looked through jira filters):
>> > >  - Several bugfixes/improvements in HBase client, often related to
>> > > rpc/retries, went in recently or about to go in.
>> > >   * HBASE-15645, when we don't use rpc timeouts properly, went in
>> > (pending
>> > > addendum for nits)
>> > >   * HBASE-15658, when we unnecessarily clear MetaCache on retries,
>> > > went
>> > in
>> > > on 1.3+,
>> > >      probably should go in 1.2 as well, see discussion there.
>> > >  * HBASE-15593, and HBASE-15615 - those should be addressed soon I
>> guess
>> > >
>> > >  - Bucket cache fixes improvements, HBASE-15240 and subtasks, would
>> > > be
>> > good
>> > > to pull in as much as possible.
>> > >  - HBASE-15703, bug in deadline rpc scheduler, I'd need to fix it
>> before
>> > > the release
>> > >
>> > > Any other very-nice-to-get-in fixes we want?
>> > >
>> > > Also need to figure out situation around HBASE-14970 - HBASE-13082
>> > > - HBASE-15697,
>> > > I kind of lost track what was committed/reverted/re-aplied on which
>> > branch.
>> > > @Andrew, Stack, Ram
>> > >
>> > > Features:
>> > >    * Date-tiered compactions. I'm looking at umbrella jira for d-t
>> > > compactions, HBASE-15339 <
>> > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-15339>
>> > > ,
>> > >       looks like there's one big item left on the list (HBASE-15454,
>> > > archive StoreFile older than max age),
>> > >       and it's being actively worked on / reviewed, and another one -
>> > > documentation task, so I assume it's all good
>> > >       and we get all date-tiers compactions improvements for 1.3.
>> > >   * Spark connector. Haven't seen much activity on it lately. Sean -
>> what
>> > > do you think about HBASE-14160?
>> > >      I'm inclined to push it to 1.4 (or whatever next release will
>> > > be)
>> if
>> > > there're no takers at this point.
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > Thanks!
>> > > Mikhail
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > On Fri, Apr 22, 2016 at 2:22 PM, Ted Yu <yu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > >
>> > > > bq. There are several patches
>> > > >
>> > > > Let us know the JIRA numbers.
>> > > > I can help with reviewing if needed.
>> > > >
>> > > > Cheers
>> > > >
>> > > > On Fri, Apr 22, 2016 at 2:18 PM, Mikhail Antonov <
>> olorinbant@gmail.com
>> > >
>> > > > wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > > Last time I've tried to run 1.3 builds there were issues with
>> > balancer,
>> > > > > which are fixed now. There are several patches I definitely would
>> > like
>> > > to
>> > > > > pull in, other than that I feel we are pretty close. I'll start
>> > > spinning
>> > > > > internal builds in a few days and if things look good will start
>> > > > preparing
>> > > > > RC's next week or so.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > I guess we are getting to feature-complete state, I'll walk
>> > > > > through
>> > the
>> > > > > jiras and send detailed email over weekend.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Thanks!
>> > > > > Mikhail
>> > > > >
>> > > > > > On Apr 22, 2016, at 8:13 AM, Ted Yu <yu...@gmail.com>
>> > > > > > wrote:
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > Mikhail:
>> > > > > > Any plan when to spin 1.3 RC0 ?
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > HBaseCon is not very far.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > I was wondering if 1.3 release can be done before HBaseCon.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > Cheers
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 12:54 PM, Mikhail Antonov <
>> > > antonov@apache.org>
>> > > > > > wrote:
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > >> To me it's not really about individual big features (besides,
>> big
>> > > > > features
>> > > > > >> might be hard to accommodate in a minor release), but enough
>> good
>> > > > > things to
>> > > > > >> justify minor release.
>> > > > > >>
>> > > > > >> What we can have (unless I'm missing something):
>> > > > > >>
>> > > > > >> [Already done or to be further improved]
>> > > > > >> - HBASE-15177 - more GC-friendly allocations in RPC services
>> > > > > >> - HBASE-14457 - multi WAL improvements
>> > > > > >> - HBASE-15222 - optimizations in metrics system, some more
>> metrics
>> > > > > >> (like HBASE-15135, HBASE-15068)
>> > > > > >> - HBASE-15306, HBASE-15136 - improving call queues handling
>> > > > > >>
>> > > > > >> [To be reviewed?):
>> > > > > >> - HBASE-15181 - date based tiered compactions (?)
>> > > > > >> - HBASE-11290 - unlock RegionStates. There was a patch update
>> > > > relatively
>> > > > > >> recently to it based on comments.
>> > > > > >>
>> > > > > >> [Possible?]
>> > > > > >> - HBASE-13557 - special handling for system tables WALs
>> > > > > >> - HBASE-13017 - keep table state in meta
>> > > > > >>
>> > > > > >> 1.2 was cut off mid-June 2015.. Should be enough time since
>> > > > > >> then
>> > > for a
>> > > > > >> minor release.
>> > > > > >>
>> > > > > >> Mikhail
>> > > > > >>
>> > > > > >> On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 10:56 AM, Enis Söztutar <
>> > enis.soz@gmail.com
>> > > >
>> > > > > >> wrote:
>> > > > > >>
>> > > > > >>> What are the "features" in current branch-1 that is not there
>> in
>> > > 1.2?
>> > > > > If
>> > > > > >>> there is none, it is not worth branching yet.
>> > > > > >>>
>> > > > > >>> Enis
>> > > > > >>>
>> > > > > >>> On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 7:57 PM, Andrew Purtell <
>> > > > > >> andrew.purtell@gmail.com>
>> > > > > >>> wrote:
>> > > > > >>>
>> > > > > >>>> No, each 0.94.x/0.96.x/98.x was or is a minor release. :-)
>> > > Sometimes
>> > > > > >> the
>> > > > > >>>> changes in those releases could all be considered "point" in
>> > scope
>> > > > or
>> > > > > >>>> effect but not always. Further supporting this point of
>> > > > > >>>> view,
>> > when
>> > > > we
>> > > > > >>> went
>> > > > > >>>> from 0.94 to 0.96 it was a major increment, in effect, due
>> > > > > >>>> to
>> > 'the
>> > > > > >>>> singularity'.
>> > > > > >>>>
>> > > > > >>>> Doing a new minor every month would be more like a return to
>> > past
>> > > > > state
>> > > > > >>> of
>> > > > > >>>> affairs, for better or worse, in my humble opinion.
>> > > > > >>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>> On Feb 24, 2016, at 7:46 PM, Stack <st...@duboce.net>
>> wrote:
>> > > > > >>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>> On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 11:50 AM, Elliott Clark <
>> > > > eclark@apache.org>
>> > > > > >>>> wrote:
>> > > > > >>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>> Is it time to branch for 1.3 ?
>> > > > > >>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>> Sean did a great job getting 1.2 out. However it was a
>> > > > > >>>>>> hard
>> > > > > >> difficult
>> > > > > >>>>>> process that I wouldn't wish on anyone. Is it time to
>> > > > > >>>>>> branch
>> > for
>> > > > 1.3
>> > > > > >>> and
>> > > > > >>>>>> start the process of stabilizing again so that we can get
>> > > > > >>>>>> a
>> > > > monthly
>> > > > > >>>> cadence
>> > > > > >>>>>> for minor releases going?
>> > > > > >>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>> Monthly cadence for minors is upping the ante. We used to
>> > > > > >>>>> be
>> > > about
>> > > > > >>>>> monthly's for point releases.
>> > > > > >>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>> +1 for the mighty Mikhail as RM. Sean, please UPS him the
>> > special
>> > > > > >> robe
>> > > > > >>>> that
>> > > > > >>>>> he has to wear while performing his RMness duties.
>> > > > > >>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>> St.Ack
>> > > > > >>
>> > > > >
>> > > >
>> > >
>> >
>>
>


-- 
Thanks,
Michael Antonov

Re: Branch for 1.3

[ramkrishna vasudevan <ra...@gmail.com>]

I saw Andy's comment. Will create a patch for trunk also and will commit
both together.

Regards
Ram

On Thu, Apr 28, 2016 at 10:39 AM, Mikhail Antonov <an...@apache.org>
wrote:

> Thanks Ram! It seems like that's fixed now (the problem when we don't
> compact often enough in TestHRegion).
>
> On Wed, Apr 27, 2016 at 4:19 AM, ramkrishna vasudevan <
> ramkrishna.s.vasudevan@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > >>Also need to figure out situation around HBASE-14970 - HBASE-13082
> > - HBASE-15697,
> > Regarding this - HBASE-14970 is found in both branch-1 and branch-1.3.
> The
> > patch for HBASE-15697 solves the ulimit issue with respect number of open
> > files. Once Andrew verifies it we can commit the patch and you can have
> > that in the branch-1.3 release IMHO.
> >
> > Thanks Mikhail for the heads up.
> >
> > Regards
> > Ram
> >
> > On Wed, Apr 27, 2016 at 2:40 PM, Mikhail Antonov <an...@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Ok, I think it's time to bring up this thread again. Let's see where we
> > > are.
> > >
> > > So, outstanding -
> > >
> > > Significant bugs (looked through jira filters):
> > >  - Several bugfixes/improvements in HBase client, often related to
> > > rpc/retries, went in recently or about to go in.
> > >   * HBASE-15645, when we don't use rpc timeouts properly, went in
> > (pending
> > > addendum for nits)
> > >   * HBASE-15658, when we unnecessarily clear MetaCache on retries, went
> > in
> > > on 1.3+,
> > >      probably should go in 1.2 as well, see discussion there.
> > >  * HBASE-15593, and HBASE-15615 - those should be addressed soon I
> guess
> > >
> > >  - Bucket cache fixes improvements, HBASE-15240 and subtasks, would be
> > good
> > > to pull in as much as possible.
> > >  - HBASE-15703, bug in deadline rpc scheduler, I'd need to fix it
> before
> > > the release
> > >
> > > Any other very-nice-to-get-in fixes we want?
> > >
> > > Also need to figure out situation around HBASE-14970 - HBASE-13082
> > > - HBASE-15697,
> > > I kind of lost track what was committed/reverted/re-aplied on which
> > branch.
> > > @Andrew, Stack, Ram
> > >
> > > Features:
> > >    * Date-tiered compactions. I'm looking at umbrella jira for d-t
> > > compactions, HBASE-15339 <
> > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-15339>
> > > ,
> > >       looks like there's one big item left on the list (HBASE-15454,
> > > archive StoreFile older than max age),
> > >       and it's being actively worked on / reviewed, and another one -
> > > documentation task, so I assume it's all good
> > >       and we get all date-tiers compactions improvements for 1.3.
> > >   * Spark connector. Haven't seen much activity on it lately. Sean -
> what
> > > do you think about HBASE-14160?
> > >      I'm inclined to push it to 1.4 (or whatever next release will be)
> if
> > > there're no takers at this point.
> > >
> > >
> > > Thanks!
> > > Mikhail
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Fri, Apr 22, 2016 at 2:22 PM, Ted Yu <yu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > bq. There are several patches
> > > >
> > > > Let us know the JIRA numbers.
> > > > I can help with reviewing if needed.
> > > >
> > > > Cheers
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, Apr 22, 2016 at 2:18 PM, Mikhail Antonov <
> olorinbant@gmail.com
> > >
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Last time I've tried to run 1.3 builds there were issues with
> > balancer,
> > > > > which are fixed now. There are several patches I definitely would
> > like
> > > to
> > > > > pull in, other than that I feel we are pretty close. I'll start
> > > spinning
> > > > > internal builds in a few days and if things look good will start
> > > > preparing
> > > > > RC's next week or so.
> > > > >
> > > > > I guess we are getting to feature-complete state, I'll walk through
> > the
> > > > > jiras and send detailed email over weekend.
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks!
> > > > > Mikhail
> > > > >
> > > > > > On Apr 22, 2016, at 8:13 AM, Ted Yu <yu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Mikhail:
> > > > > > Any plan when to spin 1.3 RC0 ?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > HBaseCon is not very far.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I was wondering if 1.3 release can be done before HBaseCon.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Cheers
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 12:54 PM, Mikhail Antonov <
> > > antonov@apache.org>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >> To me it's not really about individual big features (besides,
> big
> > > > > features
> > > > > >> might be hard to accommodate in a minor release), but enough
> good
> > > > > things to
> > > > > >> justify minor release.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> What we can have (unless I'm missing something):
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> [Already done or to be further improved]
> > > > > >> - HBASE-15177 - more GC-friendly allocations in RPC services
> > > > > >> - HBASE-14457 - multi WAL improvements
> > > > > >> - HBASE-15222 - optimizations in metrics system, some more
> metrics
> > > > > >> (like HBASE-15135, HBASE-15068)
> > > > > >> - HBASE-15306, HBASE-15136 - improving call queues handling
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> [To be reviewed?):
> > > > > >> - HBASE-15181 - date based tiered compactions (?)
> > > > > >> - HBASE-11290 - unlock RegionStates. There was a patch update
> > > > relatively
> > > > > >> recently to it based on comments.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> [Possible?]
> > > > > >> - HBASE-13557 - special handling for system tables WALs
> > > > > >> - HBASE-13017 - keep table state in meta
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> 1.2 was cut off mid-June 2015.. Should be enough time since then
> > > for a
> > > > > >> minor release.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> Mikhail
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 10:56 AM, Enis Söztutar <
> > enis.soz@gmail.com
> > > >
> > > > > >> wrote:
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>> What are the "features" in current branch-1 that is not there
> in
> > > 1.2?
> > > > > If
> > > > > >>> there is none, it is not worth branching yet.
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> Enis
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 7:57 PM, Andrew Purtell <
> > > > > >> andrew.purtell@gmail.com>
> > > > > >>> wrote:
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>> No, each 0.94.x/0.96.x/98.x was or is a minor release. :-)
> > > Sometimes
> > > > > >> the
> > > > > >>>> changes in those releases could all be considered "point" in
> > scope
> > > > or
> > > > > >>>> effect but not always. Further supporting this point of view,
> > when
> > > > we
> > > > > >>> went
> > > > > >>>> from 0.94 to 0.96 it was a major increment, in effect, due to
> > 'the
> > > > > >>>> singularity'.
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>> Doing a new minor every month would be more like a return to
> > past
> > > > > state
> > > > > >>> of
> > > > > >>>> affairs, for better or worse, in my humble opinion.
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>>>> On Feb 24, 2016, at 7:46 PM, Stack <st...@duboce.net>
> wrote:
> > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>> On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 11:50 AM, Elliott Clark <
> > > > eclark@apache.org>
> > > > > >>>> wrote:
> > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>> Is it time to branch for 1.3 ?
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>> Sean did a great job getting 1.2 out. However it was a hard
> > > > > >> difficult
> > > > > >>>>>> process that I wouldn't wish on anyone. Is it time to branch
> > for
> > > > 1.3
> > > > > >>> and
> > > > > >>>>>> start the process of stabilizing again so that we can get a
> > > > monthly
> > > > > >>>> cadence
> > > > > >>>>>> for minor releases going?
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>>> Monthly cadence for minors is upping the ante. We used to be
> > > about
> > > > > >>>>> monthly's for point releases.
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>>> +1 for the mighty Mikhail as RM. Sean, please UPS him the
> > special
> > > > > >> robe
> > > > > >>>> that
> > > > > >>>>> he has to wear while performing his RMness duties.
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>>> St.Ack
> > > > > >>
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Re: Branch for 1.3

[Mikhail Antonov <an...@apache.org>]

Thanks Ram! It seems like that's fixed now (the problem when we don't
compact often enough in TestHRegion).

On Wed, Apr 27, 2016 at 4:19 AM, ramkrishna vasudevan <
ramkrishna.s.vasudevan@gmail.com> wrote:

> >>Also need to figure out situation around HBASE-14970 - HBASE-13082
> - HBASE-15697,
> Regarding this - HBASE-14970 is found in both branch-1 and branch-1.3. The
> patch for HBASE-15697 solves the ulimit issue with respect number of open
> files. Once Andrew verifies it we can commit the patch and you can have
> that in the branch-1.3 release IMHO.
>
> Thanks Mikhail for the heads up.
>
> Regards
> Ram
>
> On Wed, Apr 27, 2016 at 2:40 PM, Mikhail Antonov <an...@apache.org>
> wrote:
>
> > Ok, I think it's time to bring up this thread again. Let's see where we
> > are.
> >
> > So, outstanding -
> >
> > Significant bugs (looked through jira filters):
> >  - Several bugfixes/improvements in HBase client, often related to
> > rpc/retries, went in recently or about to go in.
> >   * HBASE-15645, when we don't use rpc timeouts properly, went in
> (pending
> > addendum for nits)
> >   * HBASE-15658, when we unnecessarily clear MetaCache on retries, went
> in
> > on 1.3+,
> >      probably should go in 1.2 as well, see discussion there.
> >  * HBASE-15593, and HBASE-15615 - those should be addressed soon I guess
> >
> >  - Bucket cache fixes improvements, HBASE-15240 and subtasks, would be
> good
> > to pull in as much as possible.
> >  - HBASE-15703, bug in deadline rpc scheduler, I'd need to fix it before
> > the release
> >
> > Any other very-nice-to-get-in fixes we want?
> >
> > Also need to figure out situation around HBASE-14970 - HBASE-13082
> > - HBASE-15697,
> > I kind of lost track what was committed/reverted/re-aplied on which
> branch.
> > @Andrew, Stack, Ram
> >
> > Features:
> >    * Date-tiered compactions. I'm looking at umbrella jira for d-t
> > compactions, HBASE-15339 <
> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-15339>
> > ,
> >       looks like there's one big item left on the list (HBASE-15454,
> > archive StoreFile older than max age),
> >       and it's being actively worked on / reviewed, and another one -
> > documentation task, so I assume it's all good
> >       and we get all date-tiers compactions improvements for 1.3.
> >   * Spark connector. Haven't seen much activity on it lately. Sean - what
> > do you think about HBASE-14160?
> >      I'm inclined to push it to 1.4 (or whatever next release will be) if
> > there're no takers at this point.
> >
> >
> > Thanks!
> > Mikhail
> >
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Apr 22, 2016 at 2:22 PM, Ted Yu <yu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > bq. There are several patches
> > >
> > > Let us know the JIRA numbers.
> > > I can help with reviewing if needed.
> > >
> > > Cheers
> > >
> > > On Fri, Apr 22, 2016 at 2:18 PM, Mikhail Antonov <olorinbant@gmail.com
> >
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Last time I've tried to run 1.3 builds there were issues with
> balancer,
> > > > which are fixed now. There are several patches I definitely would
> like
> > to
> > > > pull in, other than that I feel we are pretty close. I'll start
> > spinning
> > > > internal builds in a few days and if things look good will start
> > > preparing
> > > > RC's next week or so.
> > > >
> > > > I guess we are getting to feature-complete state, I'll walk through
> the
> > > > jiras and send detailed email over weekend.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks!
> > > > Mikhail
> > > >
> > > > > On Apr 22, 2016, at 8:13 AM, Ted Yu <yu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Mikhail:
> > > > > Any plan when to spin 1.3 RC0 ?
> > > > >
> > > > > HBaseCon is not very far.
> > > > >
> > > > > I was wondering if 1.3 release can be done before HBaseCon.
> > > > >
> > > > > Cheers
> > > > >
> > > > > On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 12:54 PM, Mikhail Antonov <
> > antonov@apache.org>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >> To me it's not really about individual big features (besides, big
> > > > features
> > > > >> might be hard to accommodate in a minor release), but enough good
> > > > things to
> > > > >> justify minor release.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> What we can have (unless I'm missing something):
> > > > >>
> > > > >> [Already done or to be further improved]
> > > > >> - HBASE-15177 - more GC-friendly allocations in RPC services
> > > > >> - HBASE-14457 - multi WAL improvements
> > > > >> - HBASE-15222 - optimizations in metrics system, some more metrics
> > > > >> (like HBASE-15135, HBASE-15068)
> > > > >> - HBASE-15306, HBASE-15136 - improving call queues handling
> > > > >>
> > > > >> [To be reviewed?):
> > > > >> - HBASE-15181 - date based tiered compactions (?)
> > > > >> - HBASE-11290 - unlock RegionStates. There was a patch update
> > > relatively
> > > > >> recently to it based on comments.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> [Possible?]
> > > > >> - HBASE-13557 - special handling for system tables WALs
> > > > >> - HBASE-13017 - keep table state in meta
> > > > >>
> > > > >> 1.2 was cut off mid-June 2015.. Should be enough time since then
> > for a
> > > > >> minor release.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Mikhail
> > > > >>
> > > > >> On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 10:56 AM, Enis Söztutar <
> enis.soz@gmail.com
> > >
> > > > >> wrote:
> > > > >>
> > > > >>> What are the "features" in current branch-1 that is not there in
> > 1.2?
> > > > If
> > > > >>> there is none, it is not worth branching yet.
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> Enis
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 7:57 PM, Andrew Purtell <
> > > > >> andrew.purtell@gmail.com>
> > > > >>> wrote:
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>> No, each 0.94.x/0.96.x/98.x was or is a minor release. :-)
> > Sometimes
> > > > >> the
> > > > >>>> changes in those releases could all be considered "point" in
> scope
> > > or
> > > > >>>> effect but not always. Further supporting this point of view,
> when
> > > we
> > > > >>> went
> > > > >>>> from 0.94 to 0.96 it was a major increment, in effect, due to
> 'the
> > > > >>>> singularity'.
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> Doing a new minor every month would be more like a return to
> past
> > > > state
> > > > >>> of
> > > > >>>> affairs, for better or worse, in my humble opinion.
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>>> On Feb 24, 2016, at 7:46 PM, Stack <st...@duboce.net> wrote:
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>> On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 11:50 AM, Elliott Clark <
> > > eclark@apache.org>
> > > > >>>> wrote:
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>> Is it time to branch for 1.3 ?
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>>> Sean did a great job getting 1.2 out. However it was a hard
> > > > >> difficult
> > > > >>>>>> process that I wouldn't wish on anyone. Is it time to branch
> for
> > > 1.3
> > > > >>> and
> > > > >>>>>> start the process of stabilizing again so that we can get a
> > > monthly
> > > > >>>> cadence
> > > > >>>>>> for minor releases going?
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>> Monthly cadence for minors is upping the ante. We used to be
> > about
> > > > >>>>> monthly's for point releases.
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>> +1 for the mighty Mikhail as RM. Sean, please UPS him the
> special
> > > > >> robe
> > > > >>>> that
> > > > >>>>> he has to wear while performing his RMness duties.
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>> St.Ack
> > > > >>
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Re: Branch for 1.3

[ramkrishna vasudevan <ra...@gmail.com>]

>>Also need to figure out situation around HBASE-14970 - HBASE-13082
- HBASE-15697,
Regarding this - HBASE-14970 is found in both branch-1 and branch-1.3. The
patch for HBASE-15697 solves the ulimit issue with respect number of open
files. Once Andrew verifies it we can commit the patch and you can have
that in the branch-1.3 release IMHO.

Thanks Mikhail for the heads up.

Regards
Ram

On Wed, Apr 27, 2016 at 2:40 PM, Mikhail Antonov <an...@apache.org> wrote:

> Ok, I think it's time to bring up this thread again. Let's see where we
> are.
>
> So, outstanding -
>
> Significant bugs (looked through jira filters):
>  - Several bugfixes/improvements in HBase client, often related to
> rpc/retries, went in recently or about to go in.
>   * HBASE-15645, when we don't use rpc timeouts properly, went in (pending
> addendum for nits)
>   * HBASE-15658, when we unnecessarily clear MetaCache on retries, went in
> on 1.3+,
>      probably should go in 1.2 as well, see discussion there.
>  * HBASE-15593, and HBASE-15615 - those should be addressed soon I guess
>
>  - Bucket cache fixes improvements, HBASE-15240 and subtasks, would be good
> to pull in as much as possible.
>  - HBASE-15703, bug in deadline rpc scheduler, I'd need to fix it before
> the release
>
> Any other very-nice-to-get-in fixes we want?
>
> Also need to figure out situation around HBASE-14970 - HBASE-13082
> - HBASE-15697,
> I kind of lost track what was committed/reverted/re-aplied on which branch.
> @Andrew, Stack, Ram
>
> Features:
>    * Date-tiered compactions. I'm looking at umbrella jira for d-t
> compactions, HBASE-15339 <
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-15339>
> ,
>       looks like there's one big item left on the list (HBASE-15454,
> archive StoreFile older than max age),
>       and it's being actively worked on / reviewed, and another one -
> documentation task, so I assume it's all good
>       and we get all date-tiers compactions improvements for 1.3.
>   * Spark connector. Haven't seen much activity on it lately. Sean - what
> do you think about HBASE-14160?
>      I'm inclined to push it to 1.4 (or whatever next release will be) if
> there're no takers at this point.
>
>
> Thanks!
> Mikhail
>
>
>
> On Fri, Apr 22, 2016 at 2:22 PM, Ted Yu <yu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > bq. There are several patches
> >
> > Let us know the JIRA numbers.
> > I can help with reviewing if needed.
> >
> > Cheers
> >
> > On Fri, Apr 22, 2016 at 2:18 PM, Mikhail Antonov <ol...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Last time I've tried to run 1.3 builds there were issues with balancer,
> > > which are fixed now. There are several patches I definitely would like
> to
> > > pull in, other than that I feel we are pretty close. I'll start
> spinning
> > > internal builds in a few days and if things look good will start
> > preparing
> > > RC's next week or so.
> > >
> > > I guess we are getting to feature-complete state, I'll walk through the
> > > jiras and send detailed email over weekend.
> > >
> > > Thanks!
> > > Mikhail
> > >
> > > > On Apr 22, 2016, at 8:13 AM, Ted Yu <yu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Mikhail:
> > > > Any plan when to spin 1.3 RC0 ?
> > > >
> > > > HBaseCon is not very far.
> > > >
> > > > I was wondering if 1.3 release can be done before HBaseCon.
> > > >
> > > > Cheers
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 12:54 PM, Mikhail Antonov <
> antonov@apache.org>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> To me it's not really about individual big features (besides, big
> > > features
> > > >> might be hard to accommodate in a minor release), but enough good
> > > things to
> > > >> justify minor release.
> > > >>
> > > >> What we can have (unless I'm missing something):
> > > >>
> > > >> [Already done or to be further improved]
> > > >> - HBASE-15177 - more GC-friendly allocations in RPC services
> > > >> - HBASE-14457 - multi WAL improvements
> > > >> - HBASE-15222 - optimizations in metrics system, some more metrics
> > > >> (like HBASE-15135, HBASE-15068)
> > > >> - HBASE-15306, HBASE-15136 - improving call queues handling
> > > >>
> > > >> [To be reviewed?):
> > > >> - HBASE-15181 - date based tiered compactions (?)
> > > >> - HBASE-11290 - unlock RegionStates. There was a patch update
> > relatively
> > > >> recently to it based on comments.
> > > >>
> > > >> [Possible?]
> > > >> - HBASE-13557 - special handling for system tables WALs
> > > >> - HBASE-13017 - keep table state in meta
> > > >>
> > > >> 1.2 was cut off mid-June 2015.. Should be enough time since then
> for a
> > > >> minor release.
> > > >>
> > > >> Mikhail
> > > >>
> > > >> On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 10:56 AM, Enis Söztutar <enis.soz@gmail.com
> >
> > > >> wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >>> What are the "features" in current branch-1 that is not there in
> 1.2?
> > > If
> > > >>> there is none, it is not worth branching yet.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Enis
> > > >>>
> > > >>> On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 7:57 PM, Andrew Purtell <
> > > >> andrew.purtell@gmail.com>
> > > >>> wrote:
> > > >>>
> > > >>>> No, each 0.94.x/0.96.x/98.x was or is a minor release. :-)
> Sometimes
> > > >> the
> > > >>>> changes in those releases could all be considered "point" in scope
> > or
> > > >>>> effect but not always. Further supporting this point of view, when
> > we
> > > >>> went
> > > >>>> from 0.94 to 0.96 it was a major increment, in effect, due to 'the
> > > >>>> singularity'.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> Doing a new minor every month would be more like a return to past
> > > state
> > > >>> of
> > > >>>> affairs, for better or worse, in my humble opinion.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>>> On Feb 24, 2016, at 7:46 PM, Stack <st...@duboce.net> wrote:
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 11:50 AM, Elliott Clark <
> > eclark@apache.org>
> > > >>>> wrote:
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> Is it time to branch for 1.3 ?
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>> Sean did a great job getting 1.2 out. However it was a hard
> > > >> difficult
> > > >>>>>> process that I wouldn't wish on anyone. Is it time to branch for
> > 1.3
> > > >>> and
> > > >>>>>> start the process of stabilizing again so that we can get a
> > monthly
> > > >>>> cadence
> > > >>>>>> for minor releases going?
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> Monthly cadence for minors is upping the ante. We used to be
> about
> > > >>>>> monthly's for point releases.
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> +1 for the mighty Mikhail as RM. Sean, please UPS him the special
> > > >> robe
> > > >>>> that
> > > >>>>> he has to wear while performing his RMness duties.
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> St.Ack
> > > >>
> > >
> >
>

Re: Branch for 1.3

[Mikhail Antonov <an...@apache.org>]

Ok, I think it's time to bring up this thread again. Let's see where we are.

So, outstanding -

Significant bugs (looked through jira filters):
 - Several bugfixes/improvements in HBase client, often related to
rpc/retries, went in recently or about to go in.
  * HBASE-15645, when we don't use rpc timeouts properly, went in (pending
addendum for nits)
  * HBASE-15658, when we unnecessarily clear MetaCache on retries, went in
on 1.3+,
     probably should go in 1.2 as well, see discussion there.
 * HBASE-15593, and HBASE-15615 - those should be addressed soon I guess

 - Bucket cache fixes improvements, HBASE-15240 and subtasks, would be good
to pull in as much as possible.
 - HBASE-15703, bug in deadline rpc scheduler, I'd need to fix it before
the release

Any other very-nice-to-get-in fixes we want?

Also need to figure out situation around HBASE-14970 - HBASE-13082
- HBASE-15697,
I kind of lost track what was committed/reverted/re-aplied on which branch.
@Andrew, Stack, Ram

Features:
   * Date-tiered compactions. I'm looking at umbrella jira for d-t
compactions, HBASE-15339 <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-15339>
,
      looks like there's one big item left on the list (HBASE-15454,
archive StoreFile older than max age),
      and it's being actively worked on / reviewed, and another one -
documentation task, so I assume it's all good
      and we get all date-tiers compactions improvements for 1.3.
  * Spark connector. Haven't seen much activity on it lately. Sean - what
do you think about HBASE-14160?
     I'm inclined to push it to 1.4 (or whatever next release will be) if
there're no takers at this point.


Thanks!
Mikhail



On Fri, Apr 22, 2016 at 2:22 PM, Ted Yu <yu...@gmail.com> wrote:

> bq. There are several patches
>
> Let us know the JIRA numbers.
> I can help with reviewing if needed.
>
> Cheers
>
> On Fri, Apr 22, 2016 at 2:18 PM, Mikhail Antonov <ol...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Last time I've tried to run 1.3 builds there were issues with balancer,
> > which are fixed now. There are several patches I definitely would like to
> > pull in, other than that I feel we are pretty close. I'll start spinning
> > internal builds in a few days and if things look good will start
> preparing
> > RC's next week or so.
> >
> > I guess we are getting to feature-complete state, I'll walk through the
> > jiras and send detailed email over weekend.
> >
> > Thanks!
> > Mikhail
> >
> > > On Apr 22, 2016, at 8:13 AM, Ted Yu <yu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Mikhail:
> > > Any plan when to spin 1.3 RC0 ?
> > >
> > > HBaseCon is not very far.
> > >
> > > I was wondering if 1.3 release can be done before HBaseCon.
> > >
> > > Cheers
> > >
> > > On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 12:54 PM, Mikhail Antonov <an...@apache.org>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > >> To me it's not really about individual big features (besides, big
> > features
> > >> might be hard to accommodate in a minor release), but enough good
> > things to
> > >> justify minor release.
> > >>
> > >> What we can have (unless I'm missing something):
> > >>
> > >> [Already done or to be further improved]
> > >> - HBASE-15177 - more GC-friendly allocations in RPC services
> > >> - HBASE-14457 - multi WAL improvements
> > >> - HBASE-15222 - optimizations in metrics system, some more metrics
> > >> (like HBASE-15135, HBASE-15068)
> > >> - HBASE-15306, HBASE-15136 - improving call queues handling
> > >>
> > >> [To be reviewed?):
> > >> - HBASE-15181 - date based tiered compactions (?)
> > >> - HBASE-11290 - unlock RegionStates. There was a patch update
> relatively
> > >> recently to it based on comments.
> > >>
> > >> [Possible?]
> > >> - HBASE-13557 - special handling for system tables WALs
> > >> - HBASE-13017 - keep table state in meta
> > >>
> > >> 1.2 was cut off mid-June 2015.. Should be enough time since then for a
> > >> minor release.
> > >>
> > >> Mikhail
> > >>
> > >> On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 10:56 AM, Enis Söztutar <en...@gmail.com>
> > >> wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> What are the "features" in current branch-1 that is not there in 1.2?
> > If
> > >>> there is none, it is not worth branching yet.
> > >>>
> > >>> Enis
> > >>>
> > >>> On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 7:57 PM, Andrew Purtell <
> > >> andrew.purtell@gmail.com>
> > >>> wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>>> No, each 0.94.x/0.96.x/98.x was or is a minor release. :-) Sometimes
> > >> the
> > >>>> changes in those releases could all be considered "point" in scope
> or
> > >>>> effect but not always. Further supporting this point of view, when
> we
> > >>> went
> > >>>> from 0.94 to 0.96 it was a major increment, in effect, due to 'the
> > >>>> singularity'.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Doing a new minor every month would be more like a return to past
> > state
> > >>> of
> > >>>> affairs, for better or worse, in my humble opinion.
> > >>>>
> > >>>>>> On Feb 24, 2016, at 7:46 PM, Stack <st...@duboce.net> wrote:
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 11:50 AM, Elliott Clark <
> eclark@apache.org>
> > >>>> wrote:
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> Is it time to branch for 1.3 ?
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>> Sean did a great job getting 1.2 out. However it was a hard
> > >> difficult
> > >>>>>> process that I wouldn't wish on anyone. Is it time to branch for
> 1.3
> > >>> and
> > >>>>>> start the process of stabilizing again so that we can get a
> monthly
> > >>>> cadence
> > >>>>>> for minor releases going?
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Monthly cadence for minors is upping the ante. We used to be about
> > >>>>> monthly's for point releases.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> +1 for the mighty Mikhail as RM. Sean, please UPS him the special
> > >> robe
> > >>>> that
> > >>>>> he has to wear while performing his RMness duties.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> St.Ack
> > >>
> >
>

Re: Branch for 1.3

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

bq. There are several patches

Let us know the JIRA numbers.
I can help with reviewing if needed.

Cheers

On Fri, Apr 22, 2016 at 2:18 PM, Mikhail Antonov <ol...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Last time I've tried to run 1.3 builds there were issues with balancer,
> which are fixed now. There are several patches I definitely would like to
> pull in, other than that I feel we are pretty close. I'll start spinning
> internal builds in a few days and if things look good will start preparing
> RC's next week or so.
>
> I guess we are getting to feature-complete state, I'll walk through the
> jiras and send detailed email over weekend.
>
> Thanks!
> Mikhail
>
> > On Apr 22, 2016, at 8:13 AM, Ted Yu <yu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Mikhail:
> > Any plan when to spin 1.3 RC0 ?
> >
> > HBaseCon is not very far.
> >
> > I was wondering if 1.3 release can be done before HBaseCon.
> >
> > Cheers
> >
> > On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 12:54 PM, Mikhail Antonov <an...@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> To me it's not really about individual big features (besides, big
> features
> >> might be hard to accommodate in a minor release), but enough good
> things to
> >> justify minor release.
> >>
> >> What we can have (unless I'm missing something):
> >>
> >> [Already done or to be further improved]
> >> - HBASE-15177 - more GC-friendly allocations in RPC services
> >> - HBASE-14457 - multi WAL improvements
> >> - HBASE-15222 - optimizations in metrics system, some more metrics
> >> (like HBASE-15135, HBASE-15068)
> >> - HBASE-15306, HBASE-15136 - improving call queues handling
> >>
> >> [To be reviewed?):
> >> - HBASE-15181 - date based tiered compactions (?)
> >> - HBASE-11290 - unlock RegionStates. There was a patch update relatively
> >> recently to it based on comments.
> >>
> >> [Possible?]
> >> - HBASE-13557 - special handling for system tables WALs
> >> - HBASE-13017 - keep table state in meta
> >>
> >> 1.2 was cut off mid-June 2015.. Should be enough time since then for a
> >> minor release.
> >>
> >> Mikhail
> >>
> >> On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 10:56 AM, Enis Söztutar <en...@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> What are the "features" in current branch-1 that is not there in 1.2?
> If
> >>> there is none, it is not worth branching yet.
> >>>
> >>> Enis
> >>>
> >>> On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 7:57 PM, Andrew Purtell <
> >> andrew.purtell@gmail.com>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> No, each 0.94.x/0.96.x/98.x was or is a minor release. :-) Sometimes
> >> the
> >>>> changes in those releases could all be considered "point" in scope or
> >>>> effect but not always. Further supporting this point of view, when we
> >>> went
> >>>> from 0.94 to 0.96 it was a major increment, in effect, due to 'the
> >>>> singularity'.
> >>>>
> >>>> Doing a new minor every month would be more like a return to past
> state
> >>> of
> >>>> affairs, for better or worse, in my humble opinion.
> >>>>
> >>>>>> On Feb 24, 2016, at 7:46 PM, Stack <st...@duboce.net> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 11:50 AM, Elliott Clark <ec...@apache.org>
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Is it time to branch for 1.3 ?
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Sean did a great job getting 1.2 out. However it was a hard
> >> difficult
> >>>>>> process that I wouldn't wish on anyone. Is it time to branch for 1.3
> >>> and
> >>>>>> start the process of stabilizing again so that we can get a monthly
> >>>> cadence
> >>>>>> for minor releases going?
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Monthly cadence for minors is upping the ante. We used to be about
> >>>>> monthly's for point releases.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> +1 for the mighty Mikhail as RM. Sean, please UPS him the special
> >> robe
> >>>> that
> >>>>> he has to wear while performing his RMness duties.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> St.Ack
> >>
>

Re: Branch for 1.3

[Mikhail Antonov <ol...@gmail.com>]

Last time I've tried to run 1.3 builds there were issues with balancer, which are fixed now. There are several patches I definitely would like to pull in, other than that I feel we are pretty close. I'll start spinning internal builds in a few days and if things look good will start preparing RC's next week or so.

I guess we are getting to feature-complete state, I'll walk through the jiras and send detailed email over weekend.

Thanks!
Mikhail 

> On Apr 22, 2016, at 8:13 AM, Ted Yu <yu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Mikhail:
> Any plan when to spin 1.3 RC0 ?
> 
> HBaseCon is not very far.
> 
> I was wondering if 1.3 release can be done before HBaseCon.
> 
> Cheers
> 
> On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 12:54 PM, Mikhail Antonov <an...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> 
>> To me it's not really about individual big features (besides, big features
>> might be hard to accommodate in a minor release), but enough good things to
>> justify minor release.
>> 
>> What we can have (unless I'm missing something):
>> 
>> [Already done or to be further improved]
>> - HBASE-15177 - more GC-friendly allocations in RPC services
>> - HBASE-14457 - multi WAL improvements
>> - HBASE-15222 - optimizations in metrics system, some more metrics
>> (like HBASE-15135, HBASE-15068)
>> - HBASE-15306, HBASE-15136 - improving call queues handling
>> 
>> [To be reviewed?):
>> - HBASE-15181 - date based tiered compactions (?)
>> - HBASE-11290 - unlock RegionStates. There was a patch update relatively
>> recently to it based on comments.
>> 
>> [Possible?]
>> - HBASE-13557 - special handling for system tables WALs
>> - HBASE-13017 - keep table state in meta
>> 
>> 1.2 was cut off mid-June 2015.. Should be enough time since then for a
>> minor release.
>> 
>> Mikhail
>> 
>> On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 10:56 AM, Enis Söztutar <en...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> 
>>> What are the "features" in current branch-1 that is not there in 1.2? If
>>> there is none, it is not worth branching yet.
>>> 
>>> Enis
>>> 
>>> On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 7:57 PM, Andrew Purtell <
>> andrew.purtell@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> No, each 0.94.x/0.96.x/98.x was or is a minor release. :-) Sometimes
>> the
>>>> changes in those releases could all be considered "point" in scope or
>>>> effect but not always. Further supporting this point of view, when we
>>> went
>>>> from 0.94 to 0.96 it was a major increment, in effect, due to 'the
>>>> singularity'.
>>>> 
>>>> Doing a new minor every month would be more like a return to past state
>>> of
>>>> affairs, for better or worse, in my humble opinion.
>>>> 
>>>>>> On Feb 24, 2016, at 7:46 PM, Stack <st...@duboce.net> wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 11:50 AM, Elliott Clark <ec...@apache.org>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Is it time to branch for 1.3 ?
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>>> Sean did a great job getting 1.2 out. However it was a hard
>> difficult
>>>>>> process that I wouldn't wish on anyone. Is it time to branch for 1.3
>>> and
>>>>>> start the process of stabilizing again so that we can get a monthly
>>>> cadence
>>>>>> for minor releases going?
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Monthly cadence for minors is upping the ante. We used to be about
>>>>> monthly's for point releases.
>>>>> 
>>>>> +1 for the mighty Mikhail as RM. Sean, please UPS him the special
>> robe
>>>> that
>>>>> he has to wear while performing his RMness duties.
>>>>> 
>>>>> St.Ack
>>