Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-hadoop-hbase-dev-archive@minotaur.apache.org Received: (qmail 57509 invoked from network); 30 May 2009 17:53:53 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.3) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 30 May 2009 17:53:53 -0000 Received: (qmail 12641 invoked by uid 500); 30 May 2009 17:54:05 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-hadoop-hbase-dev-archive@hadoop.apache.org Received: (qmail 12594 invoked by uid 500); 30 May 2009 17:54:05 -0000 Mailing-List: contact hbase-dev-help@hadoop.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: hbase-dev@hadoop.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list hbase-dev@hadoop.apache.org Received: (qmail 12584 invoked by uid 99); 30 May 2009 17:54:05 -0000 Received: from athena.apache.org (HELO athena.apache.org) (140.211.11.136) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Sat, 30 May 2009 17:54:05 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=3.4 required=10.0 tests=HTML_MESSAGE,SPF_NEUTRAL X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: neutral (athena.apache.org: local policy) Received: from [76.13.9.58] (HELO web65514.mail.ac4.yahoo.com) (76.13.9.58) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with SMTP; Sat, 30 May 2009 17:53:56 +0000 Received: (qmail 71087 invoked by uid 60001); 30 May 2009 17:53:34 -0000 Message-ID: <120082.98654.qm@web65514.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> X-YMail-OSG: B_qn92UVM1kXLwHiMyxJQ7xv0C1PcwG0M4ritoWePkEMm7C4pX.UKrlSiRdbxc15BXgeziKz1AAqiPM8tM5KsaBdLVNYL.omZEnBlRUyfGC0Zrl7ZjKO8wFBntAhPOlgGXC8rOzDx2hzUkKmuzYebKjk_vzgF099HKUCfkO8sGWnzm18j.LzE6dTXXw.7KD4se.bdXeUbgM5nUOEBh2rKFaqgUNDX_Sy31RAOFo4rowuWXhgy5Xx40XaWbNyOeyId.0P4e4CHhlVE9R4.xP4Y0yuy2I9GDS.cSDDXzwWWgshHiFfKixQncLFhpHZK8aB7vU2gN6cTVs3fPpnC00Rnymgwr0ISnUd_MnHZA-- Received: from [69.106.5.119] by web65514.mail.ac4.yahoo.com via HTTP; Sat, 30 May 2009 10:53:34 PDT X-RocketYMMF: apurtell X-Mailer: YahooMailRC/1277.43 YahooMailWebService/0.7.289.10 References: <7c962aed0905300658o954a2a1ie72221cabb8ec409@mail.gmail.com> Date: Sat, 30 May 2009 10:53:34 -0700 (PDT) From: Andrew Purtell Subject: Re: IMO, we should make a 0.19.4 because of HBASE-1457 To: hbase-dev@hadoop.apache.org In-Reply-To: <7c962aed0905300658o954a2a1ie72221cabb8ec409@mail.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0-208997162-1243706014=:98654" X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org --0-208997162-1243706014=:98654 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii +1 ________________________________ From: stack To: hbase-dev@hadoop.apache.org Sent: Saturday, May 30, 2009 6:58:49 AM Subject: IMO, we should make a 0.19.4 because of HBASE-1457 What do people think? 0.19.x is being run in production and HBASE-1457 seems to nail issues we've been having recovering when regionservers hosting -ROOT- and/or .META. go down. There's some little issues that need looking into but should be a patch later this w/e . St.Ack P.S I'll also fix the javadoc warnings Billy Pearson identified in 0.19 branch. --0-208997162-1243706014=:98654--