-Re: Upcoming merge of snapshots branch into trunk. (HBASE-6055 and HABSE-7290)
Jonathan Hsieh 2013-01-07, 18:58
On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 at 10:38 AM, Ted Yu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Merging option #3 looks attractive. Do you have estimate for how long trunk
> should be frozen to other commits if we choose this approach ?
> The good news is that I don't think we actually need to freeze trunk. S4
in the picture for #3 is something that can happen in parallel without
freezing trunk. If changes in trunk that breaks the code in snapshots
(there currently are a few places), we'd do another S4-like commit (merge
trunk into snapshots, with review if non trivial) and then try to do the T4
commit again. This is similar to the process used to merge various hdfs2
ha-branches into hdfs trunk. Seemed like a good model to follow.
One catch is that we've been in git -- and since my svn-fu is weaker than
git-fu, I'd have to spend some time figuring out how to do this with svn (I
know it is doable).
> Is snapshot-work-0103 the latest branch for HBASE-7290 repo ?
> The snapshot-work-0103 branch is the latest stuff that has alot of extra
code I've been keeping around in a compilable state, but not what I'd
merge. Not all of it will go into the online merge. Only the code in the
jyates/snapshtos (offline) or jmhsieh/snapshots (offline+online) branch,
which has been reviewed and accepted is what I'd consider merging. I'd bet
some of the commits afterwards don't compile (the last few reviews required
me to move code around between patches -- and I was only careful with what
was going to be committed).
> I ran Test*Snapshot* tests from this branch and found one failed test:
> Time elapsed: 0.112 sec <<< ERROR!
> com.google.protobuf.UninitializedMessageException: Message missing required
> fields: name
This is safe to ignore for now -- I just intend to merge with the flush
online snapshot -- I don't intend to merge with the global online snapshot
or logroll online snapshot. These last two would become full issues once
the branch has been merged.
> On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 at 10:07 AM, Jonathan Hsieh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Hey Folks,
> > Matteo, Jesse and I seem to be getting to the point where have core
> > functionality for offline snapshots (disable table, snapshot) and online
> > snapshot (snapshot an enabled table) committed, did another rev
> > file layout, and have been steadily knocking off blocking and
> > follow-on subtasks.
> > As a heads up, I think we are going to start considering a merge of the
> > snapshots branch to trunk. We agreed early on that we'd want 3 +1s before
> > the merge occurred. Matteo, Jesse, and I worked on the core and all
> > committers now so we could technically satisfy this, but I'd really like
> > have at least 1 reviewer look at the whole thing who didn't write parts
> > it. :) We'll also try to do another update on the design docs to help
> > reviews. Please consider taking a look at the branches and let us know.
> > We're going to be spending this week hardening and testing are reasonable
> > scale to shake out more problems, so this may happen starting some time
> > next week.
> > Aside from asking for reviews, there are a few outstanding questions we'd
> > love to get your feedback on:
> > HBASE-7471 - default configuration so that snapshots are available by
> > default?
> > HBASE-7360 - do we backport offline snapshots to the apache hbase 0.94
> > line?
> > So where is the code and jiras? Currently, there are two branches -- an
// Jonathan Hsieh (shay)
// Software Engineer, Cloudera
// [EMAIL PROTECTED]