When restore-redundancy was first proposed, the question was asked whether a
REST api would be part of that, and the answer was an emphatic "no" (largely
due to the continuing "experimental" labeling on the REST API, as I recall).
So I reject that argument that this is about "including the entire feature"
Our "critical fixes rule" notes that our quarterly release cadence ensures that
there is always an upcoming release vehicle for new features -- we will be
cutting support/1.14 in just a few weeks on Aug 3. Can you make the case that
this feature is critical to release sooner? As I understand it this feature is
just an optimization -- existing code can already use the rebalance API to
restore redundancy, it just might take a little longer.
That said, all you need is three votes, so make your case. Especially as we
are already 8 weeks past the branch cut of support/1.13, and hopefully getting
very close to an RC1, concern about risk weighs on my mind more than the
merits. What level of testing has this been through? Does it touch core code?
You may be able to get the votes just by demonstrating that the risk is very
low.
I'm a +0 for this based on the information presented so far.
On 6/26/20, 11:50 AM, "Donal Evans" <doev...@vmware.com> wrote:
+1
Although normally features wouldn't really count as "critical fixes" that
would warrant inclusion after the release branch has been cut, in this case,
the internal API and gfsh commands for restore redundancy are already in the
release, and it makes much more sense to include the entire feature in one
release rather than having a semi-complete feature in 1.13 and forcing the REST
component to wait for a later release.
________________________________
From: Mark Hanson <mhan...@pivotal.io>
Sent: Friday, June 26, 2020 10:06 AM
To: dev@geode.apache.org <dev@geode.apache.org>
Subject: [Proposal] Add REST command for Restore Redundancy to 1.13
(GEODE-8095)
Hello All,
The core of the restore redundancy call structure has been refactored to
allow there to be a REST call to invoke a restore redundancy. At this point,
looking forward to the 1.13 release it would be great if we could fit this into
the 1.13 release.
What do people think?
Thanks,
Mark
