hbase-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jonathan Hsieh <...@cloudera.com>
Subject Re: 0.90.6 Release status
Date Thu, 26 Jan 2012 12:49:27 GMT
Hey Ram,

I'm still interested in the 0.90 branch and will spend some time testing
the RC.

Keep up the good work!

Jon.

On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 9:57 AM, Jean-Daniel Cryans <jdcryans@apache.org>wrote:

> (Coming in a little late, sorry about that)
>
> If HBASE-5196 is a regression from previous versions, then definitely
> -1. If not, I don't see why we'd sink the RC and even more so since it
> has no unit test which means it could add more bugs to a bug fix
> release.
>
> That said, you guys can still -1 this RC if you want.
>
> Personally I'm done with the 0.90 branch and I'm focussing my efforts
> on getting 0.92 in production here.
>
> J-D
>
> On Sat, Jan 21, 2012 at 8:38 AM, Ramakrishna s vasudevan
> <ramkrishna.vasudevan@huawei.com> wrote:
> > It is always better to get in a patch with test case.  But if it takes
>  a little more time to get the test case can we verify the patch with good
> cluster testing and raise a JIRA for the test case integration that Stack
> gives.
> >
> > By this way we can get the patch in the release and also satisfies
> Todd's suggestion.
> >
> > Any comments so that i can raise a test task for the same.
> >
> > Regards
> > Ram
> > ________________________________________
> > From: yuzhihong@gmail.com [yuzhihong@gmail.com]
> > Sent: Saturday, January 21, 2012 8:13 PM
> > To: dev@hbase.apache.org
> > Cc: dev@hbase.apache.org
> > Subject: Re: 0.90.6 Release status
> >
> > Stack said he would come up with some test for hbase-5179.
> > Suppose that takes a few more days, do you plan to check in the fix into
> 0.90 branch ?
> >
> > According to Todd's suggestion earlier, a Jira shouldn't be open for too
> long during which time patches continuously get checked in.
> >
> > Cheers
> >
> >
> >
> > On Jan 21, 2012, at 4:34 AM, Ramakrishna s vasudevan <
> ramkrishna.vasudevan@huawei.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Hi Devs
> >>
> >> After the first RC for 0.90.6 was taken
> >> HBASE-5196 - Failure in region split after PONR could cause region hole
> >> HBASE-5153 - Add retry logic in
> HConnectionImplementation#resetZooKeeperTrackers
> >>
> >> The above 2 defects have been committed.
> >>
> >> HBASE-5179 - Concurrent processing of processFaileOver and
> ServerShutdownHandler may cause region to be assigned before log splitting
> is completed, causing data loss
> >> HBASE-5225 - Backport HBASE-3845 -data loss because lastSeqWritten can
> miss memstore edits
> >> HBASE-5235 - HLogSplitter writer thread's streams not getting closed
> when any of the writer threads has exceptions.
> >> HBASE-5237 - Addendum for HBASE-5160 and HBASE-4397
> >>
> >> HBASE-5179 - is almost in a final stage for committing.  Thanks to
> Chunhui, Ted and Jinchao for persisting on the defect.
> >>
> >> The above defects were found during the testing for RC0. Hence i would
> like to cut another RC once the above
> >> defects goes into 0.90.  By tomorrow 22nd January i would like to take
> a release cut.
> >> Please let me know your suggestions/opinions.
> >>
> >> Regards
> >> Ram
>



-- 
// Jonathan Hsieh (shay)
// Software Engineer, Cloudera
// jon@cloudera.com

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message