Hey all,

We did a branch merge of the snapshot branch (hbase-6055 and
hbase-7290 combined) with trunk on 2/1/13.  This merge initially had
several always broken tests but  since then Ted, Matteo and myself
fixed all the always-broken unit tests.  I've merged again today
2/12/13 [1], and posted a patch on HBASE-7290 for the hadoopqa bot to
run.

There are primarily four of us who worked on this branch -- Jesse Y,
Matteo, Ted Yu and myself, so if we each +1, technically we would have
the 3 +1's required and could merge.  I wanted to solicit +1's from
the four who worked  on it (all committers now) and also find out if
anyone else has started reviewing the code or intends to in the next
few days.  It is a large patch (1.3MB) that I can post on review
board, but it may be easier to understand by going to the different
individual jiras (some of which have design docs).   Generally we've
been using a looser of review then commit for each of the subtasks. If
I get clean test runs from the QA bot and +1's from the folks who
worked on it or planned on reviewing it, I'd like merge sooner rather
than later.

On the unit testing front, I've personally gotten one error-free unit
tests runs runs and one with a failure in hbase-examples:
org.apache.hadoop.hbase.coprocessor.example.TestBulkDeleteProtocol.testBulkDeleteFamily.

On the system testing side, I've been testing the pre-merge version
outlined by Aleks [2] and it had been fairly robust on a 5 node
cluster with fault injection.  I've also done some testing on a 20
node cluster (no fault injection) and a few runs on a 100 node cluster
where the snapshoting feature has been robust.

Thanks,
Jon.

[1] https://github.com/jmhsieh/hbase/tree/snapshot-merge-0212
[2] http://markmail.org/message/pdbkq654ipuxyt6a

--
// Jonathan Hsieh (shay)
// Software Engineer, Cloudera
// [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Hi Jon,

If I want to give it a try, do I "simply" have to extract for the GIT
link you sent and build from there?

JM

2013/2/12, Jonathan Hsieh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Hey all,
>
> We did a branch merge of the snapshot branch (hbase-6055 and
> hbase-7290 combined) with trunk on 2/1/13.  This merge initially had
> several always broken tests but  since then Ted, Matteo and myself
> fixed all the always-broken unit tests.  I've merged again today
> 2/12/13 [1], and posted a patch on HBASE-7290 for the hadoopqa bot to
> run.
>
> There are primarily four of us who worked on this branch -- Jesse Y,
> Matteo, Ted Yu and myself, so if we each +1, technically we would have
> the 3 +1's required and could merge.  I wanted to solicit +1's from
> the four who worked  on it (all committers now) and also find out if
> anyone else has started reviewing the code or intends to in the next
> few days.  It is a large patch (1.3MB) that I can post on review
> board, but it may be easier to understand by going to the different
> individual jiras (some of which have design docs).   Generally we've
> been using a looser of review then commit for each of the subtasks. If
> I get clean test runs from the QA bot and +1's from the folks who
> worked on it or planned on reviewing it, I'd like merge sooner rather
> than later.
>
> On the unit testing front, I've personally gotten one error-free unit
> tests runs runs and one with a failure in hbase-examples:
> org.apache.hadoop.hbase.coprocessor.example.TestBulkDeleteProtocol.testBulkDeleteFamily.
>
> On the system testing side, I've been testing the pre-merge version
> outlined by Aleks [2] and it had been fairly robust on a 5 node
> cluster with fault injection.  I've also done some testing on a 20
> node cluster (no fault injection) and a few runs on a 100 node cluster
> where the snapshoting feature has been robust.
>
> Thanks,
> Jon.
>
> [1] https://github.com/jmhsieh/hbase/tree/snapshot-merge-0212
> [2] http://markmail.org/message/pdbkq654ipuxyt6a
>
> --
> // Jonathan Hsieh (shay)
> // Software Engineer, Cloudera
> // [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>

The mega patch is based on trunk.

You can apply it on latest trunk.

Cheers

On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 2:19 PM, Jean-Marc Spaggiari <
[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Hi Jon,
>
> If I want to give it a try, do I "simply" have to extract for the GIT
> link you sent and build from there?
>
> JM
>
> 2013/2/12, Jonathan Hsieh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > Hey all,
> >
> > We did a branch merge of the snapshot branch (hbase-6055 and
> > hbase-7290 combined) with trunk on 2/1/13.  This merge initially had
> > several always broken tests but  since then Ted, Matteo and myself
> > fixed all the always-broken unit tests.  I've merged again today
> > 2/12/13 [1], and posted a patch on HBASE-7290 for the hadoopqa bot to
> > run.
> >
> > There are primarily four of us who worked on this branch -- Jesse Y,
> > Matteo, Ted Yu and myself, so if we each +1, technically we would have
> > the 3 +1's required and could merge.  I wanted to solicit +1's from
> > the four who worked  on it (all committers now) and also find out if
> > anyone else has started reviewing the code or intends to in the next
> > few days.  It is a large patch (1.3MB) that I can post on review
> > board, but it may be easier to understand by going to the different
> > individual jiras (some of which have design docs).   Generally we've
> > been using a looser of review then commit for each of the subtasks. If
> > I get clean test runs from the QA bot and +1's from the folks who
> > worked on it or planned on reviewing it, I'd like merge sooner rather
> > than later.
> >
> > On the unit testing front, I've personally gotten one error-free unit
> > tests runs runs and one with a failure in hbase-examples:
> >
> org.apache.hadoop.hbase.coprocessor.example.TestBulkDeleteProtocol.testBulkDeleteFamily.
> >
> > On the system testing side, I've been testing the pre-merge version
> > outlined by Aleks [2] and it had been fairly robust on a 5 node
> > cluster with fault injection.  I've also done some testing on a 20
> > node cluster (no fault injection) and a few runs on a 100 node cluster
> > where the snapshoting feature has been robust.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Jon.
> >
> > [1] https://github.com/jmhsieh/hbase/tree/snapshot-merge-0212
> > [2] http://markmail.org/message/pdbkq654ipuxyt6a
> >
> > --
> > // Jonathan Hsieh (shay)
> > // Software Engineer, Cloudera
> > // [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
>

You could do that, or apply the mega patch to trunk, at this point.

commit a35267ff2ab727c72493df160b8c03da05a1547d
Author: Michael Stack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date:   Tue Feb 12 18:17:34 2013 +0000

Jon.

On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 2:19 PM, Jean-Marc Spaggiari
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi Jon,
>
> If I want to give it a try, do I "simply" have to extract for the GIT
> link you sent and build from there?
>
> JM
>
> 2013/2/12, Jonathan Hsieh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> Hey all,
>>
>> We did a branch merge of the snapshot branch (hbase-6055 and
>> hbase-7290 combined) with trunk on 2/1/13.  This merge initially had
>> several always broken tests but  since then Ted, Matteo and myself
>> fixed all the always-broken unit tests.  I've merged again today
>> 2/12/13 [1], and posted a patch on HBASE-7290 for the hadoopqa bot to
>> run.
>>
>> There are primarily four of us who worked on this branch -- Jesse Y,
>> Matteo, Ted Yu and myself, so if we each +1, technically we would have
>> the 3 +1's required and could merge.  I wanted to solicit +1's from
>> the four who worked  on it (all committers now) and also find out if
>> anyone else has started reviewing the code or intends to in the next
>> few days.  It is a large patch (1.3MB) that I can post on review
>> board, but it may be easier to understand by going to the different
>> individual jiras (some of which have design docs).   Generally we've
>> been using a looser of review then commit for each of the subtasks. If
>> I get clean test runs from the QA bot and +1's from the folks who
>> worked on it or planned on reviewing it, I'd like merge sooner rather
>> than later.
>>
>> On the unit testing front, I've personally gotten one error-free unit
>> tests runs runs and one with a failure in hbase-examples:
>> org.apache.hadoop.hbase.coprocessor.example.TestBulkDeleteProtocol.testBulkDeleteFamily.
>>
>> On the system testing side, I've been testing the pre-merge version
>> outlined by Aleks [2] and it had been fairly robust on a 5 node
>> cluster with fault injection.  I've also done some testing on a 20
>> node cluster (no fault injection) and a few runs on a 100 node cluster
>> where the snapshoting feature has been robust.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Jon.
>>
>> [1] https://github.com/jmhsieh/hbase/tree/snapshot-merge-0212
>> [2] http://markmail.org/message/pdbkq654ipuxyt6a
>>
>> --
>> // Jonathan Hsieh (shay)
>> // Software Engineer, Cloudera
>> // [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>

--
// Jonathan Hsieh (shay)
// Software Engineer, Cloudera
// [EMAIL PROTECTED]

I created https://reviews.apache.org/r/9416/ for review comments.

Cheers

On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 2:12 PM, Jonathan Hsieh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Hey all,
>
> We did a branch merge of the snapshot branch (hbase-6055 and
> hbase-7290 combined) with trunk on 2/1/13.  This merge initially had
> several always broken tests but  since then Ted, Matteo and myself
> fixed all the always-broken unit tests.  I've merged again today
> 2/12/13 [1], and posted a patch on HBASE-7290 for the hadoopqa bot to
> run.
>
> There are primarily four of us who worked on this branch -- Jesse Y,
> Matteo, Ted Yu and myself, so if we each +1, technically we would have
> the 3 +1's required and could merge.  I wanted to solicit +1's from
> the four who worked  on it (all committers now) and also find out if
> anyone else has started reviewing the code or intends to in the next
> few days.  It is a large patch (1.3MB) that I can post on review
> board, but it may be easier to understand by going to the different
> individual jiras (some of which have design docs).   Generally we've
> been using a looser of review then commit for each of the subtasks. If
> I get clean test runs from the QA bot and +1's from the folks who
> worked on it or planned on reviewing it, I'd like merge sooner rather
> than later.
>
> On the unit testing front, I've personally gotten one error-free unit
> tests runs runs and one with a failure in hbase-examples:
>
> org.apache.hadoop.hbase.coprocessor.example.TestBulkDeleteProtocol.testBulkDeleteFamily.
>
> On the system testing side, I've been testing the pre-merge version
> outlined by Aleks [2] and it had been fairly robust on a 5 node
> cluster with fault injection.  I've also done some testing on a 20
> node cluster (no fault injection) and a few runs on a 100 node cluster
> where the snapshoting feature has been robust.
>
> Thanks,
> Jon.
>
> [1] https://github.com/jmhsieh/hbase/tree/snapshot-merge-0212
> [2] http://markmail.org/message/pdbkq654ipuxyt6a
>
> --
> // Jonathan Hsieh (shay)
> // Software Engineer, Cloudera
> // [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>

Are we keeping the revision history of the snapshot branch when we do the merge?
Or are you planning to apply the mega patch to trunk?

----- Original Message -----
From: Jonathan Hsieh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc:
Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2013 2:12 PM
Subject: Snapshots branch trunk merging

Hey all,

We did a branch merge of the snapshot branch (hbase-6055 and
hbase-7290 combined) with trunk on 2/1/13.  This merge initially had
several always broken tests but  since then Ted, Matteo and myself
fixed all the always-broken unit tests.  I've merged again today
2/12/13 [1], and posted a patch on HBASE-7290 for the hadoopqa bot to
run.

There are primarily four of us who worked on this branch -- Jesse Y,
Matteo, Ted Yu and myself, so if we each +1, technically we would have
the 3 +1's required and could merge.  I wanted to solicit +1's from
the four who worked  on it (all committers now) and also find out if
anyone else has started reviewing the code or intends to in the next
few days.  It is a large patch (1.3MB) that I can post on review
board, but it may be easier to understand by going to the different
individual jiras (some of which have design docs).   Generally we've
been using a looser of review then commit for each of the subtasks. If
I get clean test runs from the QA bot and +1's from the folks who
worked on it or planned on reviewing it, I'd like merge sooner rather
than later.

On the unit testing front, I've personally gotten one error-free unit
tests runs runs and one with a failure in hbase-examples:
org.apache.hadoop.hbase.coprocessor.example.TestBulkDeleteProtocol.testBulkDeleteFamily.

On the system testing side, I've been testing the pre-merge version
outlined by Aleks [2] and it had been fairly robust on a 5 node
cluster with fault injection.  I've also done some testing on a 20
node cluster (no fault injection) and a few runs on a 100 node cluster
where the snapshoting feature has been robust.

Thanks,
Jon.

[1] https://github.com/jmhsieh/hbase/tree/snapshot-merge-0212
[2] http://markmail.org/message/pdbkq654ipuxyt6a

--
// Jonathan Hsieh (shay)
// Software Engineer, Cloudera
// [EMAIL PROTECTED]

I'd like to keep the history.  I need to spend some time to port this
over to svn in order to keep the history.  Alternately, I'll keep the
snapshot branches on my personal github, but would be great if we
could push it to an official apache git.

Jon.

On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 3:42 PM, lars hofhansl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Are we keeping the revision history of the snapshot branch when we do the merge?
> Or are you planning to apply the mega patch to trunk?
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Jonathan Hsieh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Cc:
> Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2013 2:12 PM
> Subject: Snapshots branch trunk merging
>
> Hey all,
>
> We did a branch merge of the snapshot branch (hbase-6055 and
> hbase-7290 combined) with trunk on 2/1/13.  This merge initially had
> several always broken tests but  since then Ted, Matteo and myself
> fixed all the always-broken unit tests.  I've merged again today
> 2/12/13 [1], and posted a patch on HBASE-7290 for the hadoopqa bot to
> run.
>
> There are primarily four of us who worked on this branch -- Jesse Y,
> Matteo, Ted Yu and myself, so if we each +1, technically we would have
> the 3 +1's required and could merge.  I wanted to solicit +1's from
> the four who worked  on it (all committers now) and also find out if
> anyone else has started reviewing the code or intends to in the next
> few days.  It is a large patch (1.3MB) that I can post on review
> board, but it may be easier to understand by going to the different
> individual jiras (some of which have design docs).   Generally we've
> been using a looser of review then commit for each of the subtasks. If
> I get clean test runs from the QA bot and +1's from the folks who
> worked on it or planned on reviewing it, I'd like merge sooner rather
> than later.
>
> On the unit testing front, I've personally gotten one error-free unit
> tests runs runs and one with a failure in hbase-examples:
> org.apache.hadoop.hbase.coprocessor.example.TestBulkDeleteProtocol.testBulkDeleteFamily.
>
> On the system testing side, I've been testing the pre-merge version
> outlined by Aleks [2] and it had been fairly robust on a 5 node
> cluster with fault injection.  I've also done some testing on a 20
> node cluster (no fault injection) and a few runs on a 100 node cluster
> where the snapshoting feature has been robust.
>
> Thanks,
> Jon.
>
> [1] https://github.com/jmhsieh/hbase/tree/snapshot-merge-0212
> [2] http://markmail.org/message/pdbkq654ipuxyt6a
>
> --
> // Jonathan Hsieh (shay)
> // Software Engineer, Cloudera
> // [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>

--
// Jonathan Hsieh (shay)
// Software Engineer, Cloudera
// [EMAIL PROTECTED]

I would be +0 on a merge if HadoopQA is good with a patch to latest trunk,
given the system testing story.

I would be +1 if I had bandwidth to review the patch. :-(
On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 2:12 PM, Jonathan Hsieh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> On the unit testing front, I've personally gotten one error-free unit
> tests runs runs and one with a failure in hbase-examples:
>
> org.apache.hadoop.hbase.coprocessor.example.TestBulkDeleteProtocol.testBulkDeleteFamily.
>
> On the system testing side, I've been testing the pre-merge version
> outlined by Aleks [2] and it had been fairly robust on a 5 node
> cluster with fault injection.  I've also done some testing on a 20
> node cluster (no fault injection) and a few runs on a 100 node cluster
> where the snapshoting feature has been robust.
>
--
Best regards,

   - Andy

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

Lars:
Can you clarify whether it is required to keep revision history for the
merge ?

Thanks

On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 3:42 PM, lars hofhansl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Are we keeping the revision history of the snapshot branch when we do the
> merge?
> Or are you planning to apply the mega patch to trunk?
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Jonathan Hsieh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Cc:
> Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2013 2:12 PM
> Subject: Snapshots branch trunk merging
>
> Hey all,
>
> We did a branch merge of the snapshot branch (hbase-6055 and
> hbase-7290 combined) with trunk on 2/1/13.  This merge initially had
> several always broken tests but  since then Ted, Matteo and myself
> fixed all the always-broken unit tests.  I've merged again today
> 2/12/13 [1], and posted a patch on HBASE-7290 for the hadoopqa bot to
> run.
>
> There are primarily four of us who worked on this branch -- Jesse Y,
> Matteo, Ted Yu and myself, so if we each +1, technically we would have
> the 3 +1's required and could merge.  I wanted to solicit +1's from
> the four who worked  on it (all committers now) and also find out if
> anyone else has started reviewing the code or intends to in the next
> few days.  It is a large patch (1.3MB) that I can post on review
> board, but it may be easier to understand by going to the different
> individual jiras (some of which have design docs).   Generally we've
> been using a looser of review then commit for each of the subtasks. If
> I get clean test runs from the QA bot and +1's from the folks who
> worked on it or planned on reviewing it, I'd like merge sooner rather
> than later.
>
> On the unit testing front, I've personally gotten one error-free unit
> tests runs runs and one with a failure in hbase-examples:
>
> org.apache.hadoop.hbase.coprocessor.example.TestBulkDeleteProtocol.testBulkDeleteFamily.
>
> On the system testing side, I've been testing the pre-merge version
> outlined by Aleks [2] and it had been fairly robust on a 5 node
> cluster with fault injection.  I've also done some testing on a 20
> node cluster (no fault injection) and a few runs on a 100 node cluster
> where the snapshoting feature has been robust.
>
> Thanks,
> Jon.
>
> [1] https://github.com/jmhsieh/hbase/tree/snapshot-merge-0212
> [2] http://markmail.org/message/pdbkq654ipuxyt6a
>
> --
> // Jonathan Hsieh (shay)
> // Software Engineer, Cloudera
> // [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>

(note we initially started in github since the two main drivers were not
committers when this started)

I'm looking into creating an svn branch from the 12/19 (?)  original branch
point, committing  each patch to svn in that branch , and then merging in
the snapshot branch where we merged in the snapshot in git. if i finish
before we take care of nit fixes (like find bugs, javadoc, spacing) we'll
commit to svn branch for follow up and when we get all the +1s to merge we
merge into svn trunk.
On Tuesday, February 12, 2013, Ted Yu wrote:

> Lars:
> Can you clarify whether it is required to keep revision history for the
> merge ?
>
> Thanks
>
> On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 3:42 PM, lars hofhansl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]<javascript:;>>
> wrote:
>
> > Are we keeping the revision history of the snapshot branch when we do the
> > merge?
> > Or are you planning to apply the mega patch to trunk?
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Jonathan Hsieh <[EMAIL PROTECTED] <javascript:;>>
> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <javascript:;>
> > Cc:
> > Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2013 2:12 PM
> > Subject: Snapshots branch trunk merging
> >
> > Hey all,
> >
> > We did a branch merge of the snapshot branch (hbase-6055 and
> > hbase-7290 combined) with trunk on 2/1/13.  This merge initially had
> > several always broken tests but  since then Ted, Matteo and myself
> > fixed all the always-broken unit tests.  I've merged again today
> > 2/12/13 [1], and posted a patch on HBASE-7290 for the hadoopqa bot to
> > run.
> >
> > There are primarily four of us who worked on this branch -- Jesse Y,
> > Matteo, Ted Yu and myself, so if we each +1, technically we would have
> > the 3 +1's required and could merge.  I wanted to solicit +1's from
> > the four who worked  on it (all committers now) and also find out if
> > anyone else has started reviewing the code or intends to in the next
> > few days.  It is a large patch (1.3MB) that I can post on review
> > board, but it may be easier to understand by going to the different
> > individual jiras (some of which have design docs).   Generally we've
> > been using a looser of review then commit for each of the subtasks. If
> > I get clean test runs from the QA bot and +1's from the folks who
> > worked on it or planned on reviewing it, I'd like merge sooner rather
> > than later.
> >
> > On the unit testing front, I've personally gotten one error-free unit
> > tests runs runs and one with a failure in hbase-examples:
> >
> >
> org.apache.hadoop.hbase.coprocessor.example.TestBulkDeleteProtocol.testBulkDeleteFamily.
> >
> > On the system testing side, I've been testing the pre-merge version
> > outlined by Aleks [2] and it had been fairly robust on a 5 node
> > cluster with fault injection.  I've also done some testing on a 20
> > node cluster (no fault injection) and a few runs on a 100 node cluster
> > where the snapshoting feature has been robust.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Jon.
> >
> > [1] https://github.com/jmhsieh/hbase/tree/snapshot-merge-0212
> > [2] http://markmail.org/message/pdbkq654ipuxyt6a
> >
> > --
> > // Jonathan Hsieh (shay)
> > // Software Engineer, Cloudera
> > // [EMAIL PROTECTED] <javascript:;>
> >
> >
>
--
// Jonathan Hsieh (shay)
// Software Engineer, Cloudera
// [EMAIL PROTECTED]

It's not up to me to decide that. :-)

Not required, it would be nice to be able to see a more fine grained revision history for the to be able to tie it back to the individual jira.
If that is a lot of trouble or flat out cannot be done, that's fine (as far as I am concerned anyway)

-- Lars
Ted Yu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>Lars:
>
>Can you clarify whether it is required to keep revision history for the merge ?
>
>
>Thanks
>
>On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 3:42 PM, lars hofhansl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>Are we keeping the revision history of the snapshot branch when we do the merge?
>Or are you planning to apply the mega patch to trunk?
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: Jonathan Hsieh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Cc:
>Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2013 2:12 PM
>Subject: Snapshots branch trunk merging
>
>Hey all,
>
>We did a branch merge of the snapshot branch (hbase-6055 and
>hbase-7290 combined) with trunk on 2/1/13.  This merge initially had
>several always broken tests but  since then Ted, Matteo and myself
>fixed all the always-broken unit tests.  I've merged again today
>2/12/13 [1], and posted a patch on HBASE-7290 for the hadoopqa bot to
>run.
>
>There are primarily four of us who worked on this branch -- Jesse Y,
>Matteo, Ted Yu and myself, so if we each +1, technically we would have
>the 3 +1's required and could merge.  I wanted to solicit +1's from
>the four who worked  on it (all committers now) and also find out if
>anyone else has started reviewing the code or intends to in the next
>few days.  It is a large patch (1.3MB) that I can post on review
>board, but it may be easier to understand by going to the different
>individual jiras (some of which have design docs).   Generally we've
>been using a looser of review then commit for each of the subtasks. If
>I get clean test runs from the QA bot and +1's from the folks who
>worked on it or planned on reviewing it, I'd like merge sooner rather
>than later.
>
>On the unit testing front, I've personally gotten one error-free unit
>tests runs runs and one with a failure in hbase-examples:
>org.apache.hadoop.hbase.coprocessor.example.TestBulkDeleteProtocol.testBulkDeleteFamily.
>
>On the system testing side, I've been testing the pre-merge version
>outlined by Aleks [2] and it had been fairly robust on a 5 node
>cluster with fault injection.  I've also done some testing on a 20
>node cluster (no fault injection) and a few runs on a 100 node cluster
>where the snapshoting feature has been robust.
>
>Thanks,
>Jon.
>
>[1] https://github.com/jmhsieh/hbase/tree/snapshot-merge-0212
>[2] http://markmail.org/message/pdbkq654ipuxyt6a
>
>--
>// Jonathan Hsieh (shay)
>// Software Engineer, Cloudera
>// [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>

I took a quick look at the megapatch attached to hbase-7290.  Added some
minor remarks to the issue.

+1 on commit as long as hadoopqa is green (caveat the flakies).

St.Ack
On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 2:12 PM, Jonathan Hsieh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Hey all,
>
> We did a branch merge of the snapshot branch (hbase-6055 and
> hbase-7290 combined) with trunk on 2/1/13.  This merge initially had
> several always broken tests but  since then Ted, Matteo and myself
> fixed all the always-broken unit tests.  I've merged again today
> 2/12/13 [1], and posted a patch on HBASE-7290 for the hadoopqa bot to
> run.
>
> There are primarily four of us who worked on this branch -- Jesse Y,
> Matteo, Ted Yu and myself, so if we each +1, technically we would have
> the 3 +1's required and could merge.  I wanted to solicit +1's from
> the four who worked  on it (all committers now) and also find out if
> anyone else has started reviewing the code or intends to in the next
> few days.  It is a large patch (1.3MB) that I can post on review
> board, but it may be easier to understand by going to the different
> individual jiras (some of which have design docs).   Generally we've
> been using a looser of review then commit for each of the subtasks. If
> I get clean test runs from the QA bot and +1's from the folks who
> worked on it or planned on reviewing it, I'd like merge sooner rather
> than later.
>
> On the unit testing front, I've personally gotten one error-free unit
> tests runs runs and one with a failure in hbase-examples:
>
> org.apache.hadoop.hbase.coprocessor.example.TestBulkDeleteProtocol.testBulkDeleteFamily.
>
> On the system testing side, I've been testing the pre-merge version
> outlined by Aleks [2] and it had been fairly robust on a 5 node
> cluster with fault injection.  I've also done some testing on a 20
> node cluster (no fault injection) and a few runs on a 100 node cluster
> where the snapshoting feature has been robust.
>
> Thanks,
> Jon.
>
> [1] https://github.com/jmhsieh/hbase/tree/snapshot-merge-0212
> [2] http://markmail.org/message/pdbkq654ipuxyt6a
>
> --
> // Jonathan Hsieh (shay)
> // Software Engineer, Cloudera
> // [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>

Hey all,

I've successfully ported the git repo to an svn branch.  The branch is
called hbase-7290v2 (I made some mistakes on v1). Here's a link to
what the svn snapshots repo looks like:

http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/hbase/branches/hbase-7290v2/

This is the official branch now --  we'll now commit fixes from the
pre-trunk-merge mega-patch reviews to that branch.  Note that the
branch has also been straightened so that only merges from trunk come
in (on in branch merges).  Because the svn branch is now the official
branch, I've made my personal repo at https://github.com/jmhsieh/hbase
read-only by others again.

You can see from the current jmhsieh/snapshots github branch, I merged
it with the apache svn (from 2/1/13, and soon to be updated with 2/12
and 2/14 merges), and they are identical (modulo some commit message
fixes).   I will likely merge from trunk every other day or so to keep
it up with trunk until the merge to trunk goes through.

https://github.com/jmhsieh/hbase/commits/snapshots

Almost there!

Jon.

On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 10:41 PM, Stack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I took a quick look at the megapatch attached to hbase-7290.  Added some
> minor remarks to the issue.
>
> +1 on commit as long as hadoopqa is green (caveat the flakies).
>
> St.Ack
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 2:12 PM, Jonathan Hsieh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Hey all,
>>
>> We did a branch merge of the snapshot branch (hbase-6055 and
>> hbase-7290 combined) with trunk on 2/1/13.  This merge initially had
>> several always broken tests but  since then Ted, Matteo and myself
>> fixed all the always-broken unit tests.  I've merged again today
>> 2/12/13 [1], and posted a patch on HBASE-7290 for the hadoopqa bot to
>> run.
>>
>> There are primarily four of us who worked on this branch -- Jesse Y,
>> Matteo, Ted Yu and myself, so if we each +1, technically we would have
>> the 3 +1's required and could merge.  I wanted to solicit +1's from
>> the four who worked  on it (all committers now) and also find out if
>> anyone else has started reviewing the code or intends to in the next
>> few days.  It is a large patch (1.3MB) that I can post on review
>> board, but it may be easier to understand by going to the different
>> individual jiras (some of which have design docs).   Generally we've
>> been using a looser of review then commit for each of the subtasks. If
>> I get clean test runs from the QA bot and +1's from the folks who
>> worked on it or planned on reviewing it, I'd like merge sooner rather
>> than later.
>>
>> On the unit testing front, I've personally gotten one error-free unit
>> tests runs runs and one with a failure in hbase-examples:
>>
>> org.apache.hadoop.hbase.coprocessor.example.TestBulkDeleteProtocol.testBulkDeleteFamily.
>>
>> On the system testing side, I've been testing the pre-merge version
>> outlined by Aleks [2] and it had been fairly robust on a 5 node
>> cluster with fault injection.  I've also done some testing on a 20
>> node cluster (no fault injection) and a few runs on a 100 node cluster
>> where the snapshoting feature has been robust.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Jon.
>>
>> [1] https://github.com/jmhsieh/hbase/tree/snapshot-merge-0212
>> [2] http://markmail.org/message/pdbkq654ipuxyt6a
>>
>> --
>> // Jonathan Hsieh (shay)
>> // Software Engineer, Cloudera
>> // [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>

--
// Jonathan Hsieh (shay)
// Software Engineer, Cloudera
// [EMAIL PROTECTED]

We've got 4 +1's (jmhsieh, stack, tedyu, mbertozzi) on merging the
hbase-7290v2 svn branch into trunk.  I'll be merging it into trunk later
tonight, and any follow on issues will be dealt with there.

Thanks all,
Jon.

On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 6:44 AM, Jonathan Hsieh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Hey all,
>
> I've successfully ported the git repo to an svn branch.  The branch is
> called hbase-7290v2 (I made some mistakes on v1). Here's a link to
> what the svn snapshots repo looks like:
>
> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/hbase/branches/hbase-7290v2/
>
> This is the official branch now --  we'll now commit fixes from the
> pre-trunk-merge mega-patch reviews to that branch.  Note that the
> branch has also been straightened so that only merges from trunk come
> in (on in branch merges).  Because the svn branch is now the official
> branch, I've made my personal repo at https://github.com/jmhsieh/hbase
> read-only by others again.
>
> You can see from the current jmhsieh/snapshots github branch, I merged
> it with the apache svn (from 2/1/13, and soon to be updated with 2/12
> and 2/14 merges), and they are identical (modulo some commit message
> fixes).   I will likely merge from trunk every other day or so to keep
> it up with trunk until the merge to trunk goes through.
>
> https://github.com/jmhsieh/hbase/commits/snapshots
>
> Almost there!
>
> Jon.
>
> On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 10:41 PM, Stack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I took a quick look at the megapatch attached to hbase-7290.  Added some
> > minor remarks to the issue.
> >
> > +1 on commit as long as hadoopqa is green (caveat the flakies).
> >
> > St.Ack
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 2:12 PM, Jonathan Hsieh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> >
> >> Hey all,
> >>
> >> We did a branch merge of the snapshot branch (hbase-6055 and
> >> hbase-7290 combined) with trunk on 2/1/13.  This merge initially had
> >> several always broken tests but  since then Ted, Matteo and myself
> >> fixed all the always-broken unit tests.  I've merged again today
> >> 2/12/13 [1], and posted a patch on HBASE-7290 for the hadoopqa bot to
> >> run.
> >>
> >> There are primarily four of us who worked on this branch -- Jesse Y,
> >> Matteo, Ted Yu and myself, so if we each +1, technically we would have
> >> the 3 +1's required and could merge.  I wanted to solicit +1's from
> >> the four who worked  on it (all committers now) and also find out if
> >> anyone else has started reviewing the code or intends to in the next
> >> few days.  It is a large patch (1.3MB) that I can post on review
> >> board, but it may be easier to understand by going to the different
> >> individual jiras (some of which have design docs).   Generally we've
> >> been using a looser of review then commit for each of the subtasks. If
> >> I get clean test runs from the QA bot and +1's from the folks who
> >> worked on it or planned on reviewing it, I'd like merge sooner rather
> >> than later.
> >>
> >> On the unit testing front, I've personally gotten one error-free unit
> >> tests runs runs and one with a failure in hbase-examples:
> >>
> >>
> org.apache.hadoop.hbase.coprocessor.example.TestBulkDeleteProtocol.testBulkDeleteFamily.
> >>
> >> On the system testing side, I've been testing the pre-merge version
> >> outlined by Aleks [2] and it had been fairly robust on a 5 node
> >> cluster with fault injection.  I've also done some testing on a 20
> >> node cluster (no fault injection) and a few runs on a 100 node cluster
> >> where the snapshoting feature has been robust.
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >> Jon.
> >>
> >> [1] https://github.com/jmhsieh/hbase/tree/snapshot-merge-0212
> >> [2] http://markmail.org/message/pdbkq654ipuxyt6a
> >>
> >> --
> >> // Jonathan Hsieh (shay)
> >> // Software Engineer, Cloudera
> >> // [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >>
>
>
>
> --
> // Jonathan Hsieh (shay)
> // Software Engineer, Cloudera
> // [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>

--
// Jonathan Hsieh (shay)
// Software Engineer, Cloudera
// [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Make that 5 +1s - I'm good too.

- Jesse Yates

On Feb 20, 2013, at 12:03 PM, Jonathan Hsieh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> We've got 4 +1's (jmhsieh, stack, tedyu, mbertozzi) on merging the
> hbase-7290v2 svn branch into trunk.  I'll be merging it into trunk later
> tonight, and any follow on issues will be dealt with there.
>
> Thanks all,
> Jon.
>
> On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 6:44 AM, Jonathan Hsieh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Hey all,
>>
>> I've successfully ported the git repo to an svn branch.  The branch is
>> called hbase-7290v2 (I made some mistakes on v1). Here's a link to
>> what the svn snapshots repo looks like:
>>
>> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/hbase/branches/hbase-7290v2/
>>
>> This is the official branch now --  we'll now commit fixes from the
>> pre-trunk-merge mega-patch reviews to that branch.  Note that the
>> branch has also been straightened so that only merges from trunk come
>> in (on in branch merges).  Because the svn branch is now the official
>> branch, I've made my personal repo at https://github.com/jmhsieh/hbase
>> read-only by others again.
>>
>> You can see from the current jmhsieh/snapshots github branch, I merged
>> it with the apache svn (from 2/1/13, and soon to be updated with 2/12
>> and 2/14 merges), and they are identical (modulo some commit message
>> fixes).   I will likely merge from trunk every other day or so to keep
>> it up with trunk until the merge to trunk goes through.
>>
>> https://github.com/jmhsieh/hbase/commits/snapshots
>>
>> Almost there!
>>
>> Jon.
>>
>> On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 10:41 PM, Stack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> I took a quick look at the megapatch attached to hbase-7290.  Added some
>>> minor remarks to the issue.
>>>
>>> +1 on commit as long as hadoopqa is green (caveat the flakies).
>>>
>>> St.Ack
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 2:12 PM, Jonathan Hsieh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hey all,
>>>>
>>>> We did a branch merge of the snapshot branch (hbase-6055 and
>>>> hbase-7290 combined) with trunk on 2/1/13.  This merge initially had
>>>> several always broken tests but  since then Ted, Matteo and myself
>>>> fixed all the always-broken unit tests.  I've merged again today
>>>> 2/12/13 [1], and posted a patch on HBASE-7290 for the hadoopqa bot to
>>>> run.
>>>>
>>>> There are primarily four of us who worked on this branch -- Jesse Y,
>>>> Matteo, Ted Yu and myself, so if we each +1, technically we would have
>>>> the 3 +1's required and could merge.  I wanted to solicit +1's from
>>>> the four who worked  on it (all committers now) and also find out if
>>>> anyone else has started reviewing the code or intends to in the next
>>>> few days.  It is a large patch (1.3MB) that I can post on review
>>>> board, but it may be easier to understand by going to the different
>>>> individual jiras (some of which have design docs).   Generally we've
>>>> been using a looser of review then commit for each of the subtasks. If
>>>> I get clean test runs from the QA bot and +1's from the folks who
>>>> worked on it or planned on reviewing it, I'd like merge sooner rather
>>>> than later.
>>>>
>>>> On the unit testing front, I've personally gotten one error-free unit
>>>> tests runs runs and one with a failure in hbase-examples:
>>>>
>>>>
>> org.apache.hadoop.hbase.coprocessor.example.TestBulkDeleteProtocol.testBulkDeleteFamily.
>>>>
>>>> On the system testing side, I've been testing the pre-merge version
>>>> outlined by Aleks [2] and it had been fairly robust on a 5 node
>>>> cluster with fault injection.  I've also done some testing on a 20
>>>> node cluster (no fault injection) and a few runs on a 100 node cluster
>>>> where the snapshoting feature has been robust.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Jon.
>>>>
>>>> [1] https://github.com/jmhsieh/hbase/tree/snapshot-merge-0212
>>>> [2] http://markmail.org/message/pdbkq654ipuxyt6a
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> // Jonathan Hsieh (shay)
>>>> // Software Engineer, Cloudera
>>>> // [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>>