Github user sijie commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/bookkeeper/pull/125
oh, I understand what you are saying now. The reason that we didn't make it
automatically generate the protobuf classes with the build is not every one
installed protoc. If there's a
Github user sijie commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/bookkeeper/pull/125
@eolivelli okay. so I think we are in the same page. I will add the
generated protobuf classes in this review. I forgot that.
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and
Github user sijie commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/bookkeeper/pull/125
add the generated protobuf file.
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have this feature
enabled
Github user sijie commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/bookkeeper/pull/125
tag @merlimat for reviews
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have this feature
enabled and
Github user sijie commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/bookkeeper/pull/126
@merlimat @eolivelli - what is the deal for this pr? shall we add the tests
now or doing it in a separated jira?
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
Github user sijie commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/bookkeeper/pull/130
@athanatos I think those two are known failures. I think @eolivelli knew
about it.
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well
Github user sijie commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/bookkeeper/pull/125
ping @merlimat
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have this feature
enabled and wishes so, or
Github user sijie commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/bookkeeper/pull/130
merging now
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have this feature
enabled and wishes so, or if
Github user sijie commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/bookkeeper/pull/80
@athanatos there are two changes here - one is fallocate, while the other
one is sync_range. we can remove sync_range part as we didn't use that.
---
If your project is set up for it, yo
Github user sijie commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/bookkeeper/pull/131
@eolivelli can you change the caption "BOOKKEEPER-xxx: "?
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well. If your pr
Github user sijie commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/bookkeeper/pull/80
rebased to latest master and remove 'sync_file_range'
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project doe
Github user sijie commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/bookkeeper/pull/80
/cc @jvrao and @merlimat for reviews
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have this feature
Github user sijie commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/bookkeeper/pull/81
@jvrao I answered the questions above (new pr will be pushed)
/cc @merlimat for another review.
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear
Github user sijie commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/bookkeeper/pull/80
@eolivelli -Pnative will build the library. We can update the jenkins job
once this change is merged. (I can't do it before this change is merged)
Re packaging - that would be the pa
Github user sijie commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/bookkeeper/pull/80
updated the branch with missing license header
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have this
Github user sijie commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/bookkeeper/pull/133
@eolivelli how did you merge this PR? Are you using the merge script?
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well. If your
Github user sijie commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/bookkeeper/pull/133
This is weird. even you don't have jira plugin, the script won't close the
jira but it will still close the pull request.
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this
Github user sijie commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/bookkeeper/pull/133
@eolivelli I am not sure why the merge scripts doesn't close this pull
request.
Can you manually close your pull request and resolve the jira?
---
If your project is set up for it
Github user sijie commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/bookkeeper/pull/121
@merlimat do you mind taking a look at this one?
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have this
Github user sijie commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/bookkeeper/pull/117
@arvindkandhare any updates? Do you want to merge @eolivelli 's patch?
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well. If
Github user sijie commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/bookkeeper/pull/97
@eolivelli since netty 4 is in, do you mind rebasing this pull request?
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well. If your
Github user sijie commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/bookkeeper/pull/116
@kishorekasi I merged #138 . do you mind closing this pull request?
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project
Github user sijie commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/bookkeeper/pull/81
@jvrao even you enforce force compaction or allow entry log creation, it
doesn't really address the issue that this pull request addresses. the change
is useful when all your disks are full
Github user sijie commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/bookkeeper/pull/127
@reddycharan do you mind addressing the findbugs error?
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not
Github user sijie commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/bookkeeper/pull/97
@kishorekasi @jvrao ^^ any thoughts?
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have this feature
Github user sijie commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/bookkeeper/pull/117
@arvindkandhare @eolivelli any updates on this?
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have this
Github user sijie commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/bookkeeper/pull/110
@eolivelli can you rebase and merge it? +1 from me
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have
Github user sijie commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/bookkeeper/pull/81
@jvrao thoughts?
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have this feature
enabled and wishes so, or
Github user sijie commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/bookkeeper/pull/97
@kishorekasi any thoughts about the new SSL pull requests?
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not
GitHub user sijie opened a pull request:
https://github.com/apache/bookkeeper/pull/159
BOOKKKEEPER-1072: CompactionTest is flaky when disks are almost full
You can merge this pull request into a Git repository by running:
$ git pull https://github.com/sijie/bookkeeper
GitHub user sijie opened a pull request:
https://github.com/apache/bookkeeper/pull/160
BOOKKEEPER-1073: Several stats provider related changes.
- add finagle stats provider
- provide the ability to remove gauge and scopes
- update jetty versions for twitter-sciences stats
Github user sijie commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/bookkeeper/pull/160
Changes were made from multiple folks at Twitter. I just ported these
changes back to the community.
@yzang @leighst
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email
GitHub user sijie opened a pull request:
https://github.com/apache/bookkeeper/pull/161
BOOKKEEPER-1074: Remove JMX Bean
This change is based on #160 , the change here is: gitsha
[b3be81f](https://github.com/sijie/bookkeeper/commit/b3be81fadae50f2d4a2e938c2735fa35c6c31421)
You can
GitHub user sijie opened a pull request:
https://github.com/apache/bookkeeper/pull/162
BOOKKEEPER-1075: BK LedgerMetadata: more memory-efficient parsing of configs
It is the contribution from Alex Yarmula
commit 9d9d7dd26235a9beda4421b7bed750fea1789076
Author: Alex
GitHub user sijie opened a pull request:
https://github.com/apache/bookkeeper/pull/163
Bookkeeper-1077: Allow configuration journal/ledger paths for local
bookkeeper.
You can merge this pull request into a Git repository by running:
$ git pull https://github.com/sijie
GitHub user sijie opened a pull request:
https://github.com/apache/bookkeeper/pull/164
BOOKKEEPER-1078: Local BookKeeper enhancements for testability
BookKeeper: Local Bookkeeper enhancements for testability
1. Allow creating local bookies without always starting a
Github user sijie commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/bookkeeper/pull/164
This change is based on #163
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have this feature
enabled and
Github user sijie commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/bookkeeper/pull/117
@eolivelli please go ahead. let's move first.
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have
Github user sijie commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/bookkeeper/issues/165
@bwsw great job!
@eolivelli do you want to update the documentation to include @bwsw 's
tutorial?
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
Github user sijie commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/bookkeeper/issues/165
@eolivelli let's discuss the issue tracking at the mail-list. but my
thought here is - if there is a github issue here, we don't need to create a
jira. but the pull request need to
GitHub user sijie opened a pull request:
https://github.com/apache/bookkeeper/pull/168
BOOKKEEPER-989: Enable Travis CI for Apache BookKeeper
You can merge this pull request into a Git repository by running:
$ git pull https://github.com/sijie/bookkeeper enable_travis_ci
Github user sijie commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/bookkeeper/pull/168
we can configure it to run on both linux and mac.
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have
Github user sijie commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/bookkeeper/issues/165
oh I just realized that site repo is still in svn. we might need to move
that to git (and probably rewrite this using static generator like jeklly).
Otherwise there is visibility on the changes
Github user sijie commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/bookkeeper/issues/165
@eolivelli I believe we might need to request permission from INFRA team.
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well. If your
Github user sijie commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/bookkeeper/pull/80
@eolivelli I will pick up your change. I will try to do it today.
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project
Github user sijie commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/bookkeeper/pull/170
checking the jenkins build now
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have this feature
enabled
Github user sijie commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/bookkeeper/pull/160
@eolivelli feel free to merge.
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have this feature
enabled
Github user sijie commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/bookkeeper/pull/164
updated.
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have this feature
enabled and wishes so, or if the
Github user sijie commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/bookkeeper/pull/170
Hmm. I am not really sure about the error here.
@eolivelli - did you change any settings on hudson? The error message seems
to be related to hudson.
---
If your project is set up for it
Github user sijie commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/bookkeeper/pull/170
I created a new maven-based job (the old one is using customized shell
script). It seems to be working, need to adjust some build commands.
https://builds.apache.org/job/bookkeeper-precommit
Github user sijie commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/bookkeeper/pull/170
https://builds.apache.org/job/bookkeeper-precommit-pullrequest/4/console
seems to be working now.
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on
Github user sijie commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/bookkeeper/pull/168
for the travis ci, I am holding this off until we addressed the failed
tests in master.
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as
GitHub user sijie opened a pull request:
https://github.com/apache/bookkeeper/pull/171
BOOKKEEPER-1083: Improvements on OrderedSafeExecutor
- use listeningscheduledexecutorservice for the threads
- as a general util class, expose chooseThread to allow applications
use
Github user sijie commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/bookkeeper/pull/170
https://builds.apache.org/job/bookkeeper-precommit-pullrequest/4/console it
passed. merging this change now.
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply
Github user sijie commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/bookkeeper/pull/161
@eolivelli I will rebase and merge it.
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have this feature
GitHub user sijie opened a pull request:
https://github.com/apache/bookkeeper/pull/172
BOOKKEEPER-1084: Make variables finale if necessary
not all logger in bookkeeper & hedwig are static. some class like
PendnigReadOp and LedgerEntry would have lots of objects, it might be bad
GitHub user sijie opened a pull request:
https://github.com/apache/bookkeeper/pull/173
BOOKKEEPER-1085: Introduce the AlertStatsLogger
Introduce the AlertStatsLogger used to increment a metric whenever an event
that should never happen is detected. Allow specifying an optional
Github user sijie commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/bookkeeper/pull/173
This change is from Robin
`
commit e28e6cb3e037e2c006162a998aabe6fb09214ac5
Author: Robin Dhamankar
Date: Tue Mar 10 12:59:45 2015 -0700
BookKeeper: Introduce
GitHub user sijie opened a pull request:
https://github.com/apache/bookkeeper/pull/174
BOOKKEEPER-748: Move fence requests out of read threads
This change is moving the fence request out of current read threads and
using callback to trigger scheduling read entry and also it
Github user sijie commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/bookkeeper/pull/174
The long poll part is mainly contributed by Robin & Leigh. Please list them
when merging long poll related changes.
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and
Github user sijie commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/bookkeeper/pull/161
rebased.
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have this feature
enabled and wishes so, or if the
Github user sijie commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/bookkeeper/pull/173
added license header
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have this feature
enabled and wishes
Github user sijie commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/bookkeeper/issues/165
@jvrao
re "a separate git repo" - current java tutorial is a tutorial wrote by
@ivankelly , it is not in bookkeeper's repo.
a tutorial is just a sample applicat
Github user sijie commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/bookkeeper/pull/175
The CI (https://builds.apache.org/job/bookkeeper-precommit-pullrequest/17/)
passed.
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well
Github user sijie commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/bookkeeper/pull/168
https://travis-ci.org/apache/bookkeeper/jobs/238455091 somehow the tests
are taking much longer time than they are running on jenkins (or laptop).
`
Running
GitHub user sijie opened a pull request:
https://github.com/apache/bookkeeper/pull/176
BOOKKEEPER-1086: Ledger Recovery - Refactor PendingReadOp
this change is the first part of improving ledger recovery. it is basically
a refactor change, which:
- abstract an interface
Github user sijie commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/bookkeeper/pull/176
@eolivelli no this is from my changes.
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have this feature
GitHub user sijie opened a pull request:
https://github.com/apache/bookkeeper/pull/177
BOOKKEEPER-1087: Ledger Recovery - Add a parallel reading request in
PendingReadOp
THIS CHANGE IS BASED ON #176 (you can review f0fb89c)
bookkeeper recovery improvement (part-2): add a
Github user sijie commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/bookkeeper/pull/168
@eolivelli @merlimat @jiazhai if there is no objections, I am going to
merge this one.
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as
Github user sijie commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/bookkeeper/pull/177
@eolivelli I think a better approach is to complete the reviews for all the
sub-tasks for a given master JIRA before merging. otherwise, I have to rebase
every time you merged.
for
GitHub user sijie opened a pull request:
https://github.com/apache/bookkeeper/pull/178
BOOKKEEPER-1088: Ledger Recovery - Add a ReadEntryListener to callback on
individual request
THIS CHANGE IS BASED ON #177 (you can review 868a3c8 for the only change
that belongs to BOOKKEEPER
Github user sijie commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/bookkeeper/pull/174
The CI passed (refs/remotes/origin/pr/174/head) at
https://builds.apache.org/job/bookkeeper-precommit-pullrequest/21/
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have
Github user sijie commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/bookkeeper/pull/168
@jvrao I am open to move from travis to jenkins. but I think there is value
for keep both. the reason I added travis: people can enable travis ci on their
folks, so it can use travis ci to verify
Github user sijie commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/bookkeeper/pull/177
@merlimat @jvrao please review this. if there is no objections, I'd like to
complete the ledger recovery changes and move on.
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this emai
GitHub user sijie opened a pull request:
https://github.com/apache/bookkeeper/pull/180
BOOKKEEPER-1093: Piggyback LAC on ReadResponse
This change is based #178 - (you can review git sha 40ca8c2)
bookkeeper: LAC piggyback at read response
- bookie server
GitHub user sijie opened a pull request:
https://github.com/apache/bookkeeper/pull/181
BOOKKEEPER-1089: Ledger Recovery (part-4) - allow batch reads in ledger
recovery
This change is based on #178 - (you can review git sha 82f73ef)
bookkeeper recovery improvement (part-4
Github user sijie commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/bookkeeper/pull/108
LGTM +1
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have this feature
enabled and wishes so, or if the
GitHub user sijie opened a pull request:
https://github.com/apache/bookkeeper/pull/182
BOOKKEEPER-1092: Ledger Recovery - Add Test Case for Parallel Ledger
Recovery
This change is based on #180 (ebf7020 is the change for review)
- Add test case for parallel ledger recovery
Github user sijie commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/bookkeeper/pull/108
merged this. thank you @reddycharan @dlg99
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have this
Github user sijie commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/bookkeeper/pull/174
rebased to latest master and wait CI to complete.
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have this
Github user sijie commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/bookkeeper/pull/177
All CI passed. Merging this now.
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have this feature
enabled
Github user sijie commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/bookkeeper/pull/180
@merlimat review?
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have this feature
enabled and wishes so
Github user sijie commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/bookkeeper/pull/181
@merlimat ?
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have this feature
enabled and wishes so, or if
Github user sijie commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/bookkeeper/pull/182
@merlimat can you review this as well?
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have this feature
Github user sijie commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/bookkeeper/pull/180
you still need to call "readLastAddConfirmed". This change is not "long
poll", it is "piggy-back lac". It is an optimization on reducing the times of
calling read
Github user sijie commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/bookkeeper/pull/80
@eolivelli I haven't yet will do in the weekend.
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have
GitHub user sijie opened a pull request:
https://github.com/apache/bookkeeper/pull/187
CompactionTest tests are broken because of BOOKKEEPER-1088
Problem:
5fe86525a9c823f79b3e97fd82ea4aa1c75c79eb this commit broken the master. It
is because the merge/rebase introduce
Github user sijie commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/bookkeeper/pull/180
@merlimat ??
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have this feature
enabled and wishes so, or if
Github user sijie commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/bookkeeper/pull/185
@eolivelli if it is WIP, it is good to add change the PR title to be "WIP -
"
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitH
Github user sijie commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/bookkeeper/issues/184
I think Jia posted a BP. @eolivelli can you work with Jia to consolidate
the efforts?
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as
Github user sijie commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/bookkeeper/pull/181
It is still blocked on #180. I already pinged on that pr. Do you mind
letting me managing the merge on these patches, because they have sequence and
dependencies?
---
If your project is set up
Github user sijie commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/bookkeeper/pull/181
rebased to latest master, waiting for CI to complete
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have
Github user sijie commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/bookkeeper/pull/81
@reddycharan yes. I think the features can co-exist. I think the question
is - are you guys okay with this change? I am trying to move on merging
twitter's branch.
---
If your project is s
Github user sijie commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/bookkeeper/pull/81
@reddycharan I've explained that above. in the case, you don't actually
have any physical disk space for compaction or open any new entry log files,
your approach still doesn't work
Github user sijie commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/bookkeeper/pull/81
@reddycharan sure. it happened to us before, that's why the code exists. I
am trying to reach a consensus on this change. If you guys are okay with this
change, I am going to rebase my c
Github user sijie commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/bookkeeper/pull/81
Sure
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have this feature
enabled and wishes so, or if the
Github user sijie commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/bookkeeper/pull/189
@reddycharan I can understand this code change but I don't see a strong
reason about this change. What is the issue if you configure multiple same
directories? Also the option doesn't
Github user sijie commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/bookkeeper/pull/189
@reddycharan gotcha. If that's the case, is the configuration flag really
needed here?
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitH
Github user sijie commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/bookkeeper/pull/189
@reddycharan no, I mean - why does people care about this layout? Shall the
correct fix be - the disk checker figure out which physical disk that the
bookie is using and handle that correctly
Github user sijie commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/bookkeeper/pull/192
@jiazhai I think these two files introduced the rate-check warnings. please
either exclude them from apache-rat checking or add apache license header.
---
If your project is set up for it, you
1 - 100 of 1818 matches
Mail list logo
