hbase-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Stack <st...@duboce.net>
Subject [DISCUSSION] Finishing up 0.96 --> WAS Re: 0.95 and 0.96 remaining issues
Date Tue, 25 Jun 2013 03:45:40 GMT
(Changed the subject)

On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 4:04 PM, Nick Dimiduk <ndimiduk@gmail.com> wrote:

> I want to see initial data type APIs ship out with 0.95.2. A patch for
> ordered byte serialization is up (HBASE-8201) and is nearing steady-state.
> However, sershe is the only person who's left feedback. I just posted an
> early patch for the data type API itself (HBASE-8693). It should get some
> eyes from all manor of interested parties, but I'll settle for folk from
> Phoenix for now.
It would be cool if Phoenix and Kiji fellows and any one else interested
would weigh in and take a look see.

This does not strike me as something we should hold up the release for
though.  It looks like something that could go in at any time?

> Should these tasks be escalated to criticals in order to grab attention?
I don't think that works going by past experience (and I don't think this a
blocker on 0.96)

> Additional comments inline.

> Namespaces is the long pole and progress seems slow.  Do we hold up the
> > release for them?  How can we hurry this effort along?  Swat team
> descends
> > on Y!?
> >
> It would be a shame to not get a decision on this in for 0.96.
Agree.  We need to get 0.96 out though.  It has been too long.

> + Is anyone testing?  Integration tests fail on ec2 build from time to time
> > [2].  Our Elliott dug in on one of the failures a few days back and found
> > legit issue w/ no retry on admin tasks (I heart hbase-it tests).  Our
> unit
> > test story is better [3] but there are still the odd failures.
> >
> With the creation of the new list, noticing these issues is going to push
> further back-burner. Nannying this stuff should retain focus. I'll
> volunteer to track on these issues as I see them.
Thank you Nick.

> Notice though that some of the more recent failures are caused by lack of
> disk space on the Jenkins build host.
Oh.  Missed that.  Let me dig in.


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