Mailing-List: contact dev-help@hbase.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@hbase.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of enis.soz@gmail.com designates
 209.85.216.181 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAPzbcGTfYLPCU2D7k4e+_ZBKJPOTmjboigPRvUy3WZKvEB5MsQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: 
 <CADcMMgGa0gunuNmEstWQsf8dQRRrGaENS7d=B76A9r2G9B+C-g@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPQV63XLx6jKatM+yCLkRAJrUurYTOfQ771j0HpKCsz3R1Grdw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPzbcGTfYLPCU2D7k4e+_ZBKJPOTmjboigPRvUy3WZKvEB5MsQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: =?UTF-8?Q?Enis_S=C3=B6ztutar?= <enis.soz@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 31 Aug 2013 15:16:44 -0700
Message-ID: 
 <CAMUu0w9F_1GH2tGCZLczDUrAkU-nO2gx6pMaQ464o4CNmvvuRw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [VOTE] The 1st hbase-0.96.0 release candidate is available for
 download
To: "dev@hbase.apache.org" <dev@hbase.apache.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c1bc00f68f6104e545b2ce

--001a11c1bc00f68f6104e545b2ce
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

I have run into a similar case where we were encoding a negative integer as
a uint64. It turns out that it just works, since PB encoding and decoding
back will still cast to java longs, since java does not have unsigned's, it
will turn to -1 again. However, it anybody reads that value from c++ PB
library for example, they will read the equivalent of (unsigned long) -1.


On Sat, Aug 31, 2013 at 11:23 AM, Devaraj Das <ddas@hortonworks.com> wrote:

> Thanks for making the RC, Stack. I bumped into one thing which I thought =
I
> should bring up in the context of singularity - the ServerName message in
> hbase.proto should have the start_code as a signed int. We allow for -1 (
> ServerName.NON_STARTCODE) as a start_code. Hence.. Yes it can be worked
> around, and, maybe there won't any wire-compat issues if we make the chan=
ge
> later (not sure about it) but I think we should fix it now. What do you
> think?
>
> For illustration, here is the proposed fix.
>
> diff --git a/hbase-protocol/src/main/protobuf/hbase.proto
> b/hbase-protocol/src/main/protobuf/hbase.proto
> index 08061e5..2f9a8d1 100644
> --- a/hbase-protocol/src/main/protobuf/hbase.proto
> +++ b/hbase-protocol/src/main/protobuf/hbase.proto
> @@ -120,7 +120,7 @@ enum CompareType {
>  message ServerName {
>    required string host_name =3D 1;
>    optional uint32 port =3D 2;
> -  optional uint64 start_code =3D 3;
> +  optional int64 start_code =3D 3;
>  }
>
>
>
>
> On Sat, Aug 31, 2013 at 4:15 AM, Jean-Marc Spaggiari <
> jean-marc@spaggiari.org> wrote:
>
> > Hi St.Ack,
> >
> > Thanks for this release!
> >
> > Is there a way to run the test suite on the binary packages? Or we can
> only
> > run the tests on the source distribution?
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > JM
> >
> >
> > 2013/8/30 Stack <stack@duboce.net>
> >
> > > hbase-0.96.0  will be our next major release.  It is intended to
> supplant
> > > the 0.94.x series.
> > >
> > > hbase-0.96.0RC0 is our first candidate for release hbase-0.96.0.
> > >
> > > The signed tarballs are available here:
> > >
> > >  http://people.apache.org/~stack/0.96.0RC0/
> > >
> > > The hbase built against hadoop1 artifacts are here:
> > >
> > >
> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachehbase-126/
> > >
> > > The hbase built against hadoop2 artifacts are here:
> > >
> > >
> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachehbase-127/
> > >
> > > Note that hbase-0.96.0 comes in two flavors; a build that includes an=
d
> > runs
> > > on hadoop-1.x and another for hadoop-2.x.  You must chose the hbase
> that
> > > suits your hadoop context.
> > >
> > > Almost 2k issues [1] are attributed to this version (counting fixes
> done
> > > against this and the 0.95.x developer series of releases).  Almost 10=
0
> > > fixes have been committed since 0.95.2.  I will follow up w/ a synops=
is
> > of
> > > the major changes.
> > >
> > > Please take it for a spin.  We are interested in any issues found but
> in
> > > particular, we would appreciate feedback on how well the migration of=
 a
> > > 0.94.x dataset to run under 0.96.0 works [2].
> > >
> > > Should this candidate become hbase-0.96.0?  Please vote +/-1 by
> September
> > > 9th.
> > >
> > >
> > > St.Ack
> > >
> > > 1.
> > >
> > >
> >
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=3Dproject%20%3D%20HBASE%20AND%=
20(%20fixVersion%20%3D%20%220.96.0%22%20or%20fixVersion%20%3D%20%220.95.0%2=
2%20%20or%20fixVersion%20%3D%20%220.95.1%22%20or%20fixVersion%20%3D%20%220.=
95.2%22%20)%20AND%20(status%20%3D%20Resolved%20OR%20status%20%3D%20Closed)%=
20ORDER%20BY%20issuetype%20DESC%2C%20priority%20DESC
> > > 2. http://hbase.apache.org/book.html#upgrade0.96
> > >
> >
>
> --
> CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE
> NOTICE: This message is intended for the use of the individual or entity =
to
> which it is addressed and may contain information that is confidential,
> privileged and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader
> of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified th=
at
> any printing, copying, dissemination, distribution, disclosure or
> forwarding of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have
> received this communication in error, please contact the sender immediate=
ly
> and delete it from your system. Thank You.
>

--001a11c1bc00f68f6104e545b2ce--