hbase-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Fabien LE GALLO <flega...@ubikod.com>
Subject Re: [VOTE] The 4th HBase 0.98.1 release candidate (RC3) is available for download
Date Fri, 04 Apr 2014 08:22:38 GMT
Oh ok I just saw the announcement of 0.96.2 a few posts back. I just
couldn't find it on apache mirrors.
Sorry about that.


On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 10:19 AM, Fabien LE GALLO <flegallo@ubikod.com>wrote:

> What about 0.96.2 ? According to JIRA, it was supposed to be released
> yesterday.
> I want to apply HBASE-10850 patch to a stable release but it cannot be
> applied to 0.96.1.
>
>
>
> On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 8:30 AM, Andrew Purtell <apurtell@apache.org>wrote:
>
>> (cc dev@)
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 8:29 AM, Andrew Purtell <apurtell@apache.org>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > Thank you, the release of 0.98.1 will happen on time unless there is a
>> new
>> > development.
>> >
>> >
>> > On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 4:23 AM, ramkrishna vasudevan <
>> > ramkrishna.s.vasudevan@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> +1 on getting this RC3 out as the release and targetting the bug for
>> >> 0.98.2.
>> >>
>> >> Regards
>> >> Ram
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 7:49 AM, Anoop John <anoop.hbase@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > >Phoenix 4.0 has no release it can currently run on
>> >> > >Can't we get these additional bugs in 0.98.2 - it's one month away
>> >> >
>> >> > I was thinking that for Phoenix 4.0 *release* the 98.1 is needed..
>> >>  Thats
>> >> > why was in favor of correcting the bug in 98.1 itself..  Ya 98.2 can
>> >> come
>> >> > out in a month time and at that time 4.0 can upgrade to that..
>>  Sounds
>> >> > good.. I am ready to again cast my +1 for this RC.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > >@Anoop - would you mind verifying whether or not
>> >> > the TestSCVFWithMiniCluster written as a Phoenix query returns the
>> >> correct
>> >> > results?
>> >> >
>> >> > I will check this James..  I think it might be there.  Any way, even
>> if
>> >> the
>> >> > bug is there, there can be a work around solution in Phoenix filter
>> code
>> >> > which I can try out  (If you would like to get)
>> >> >
>> >> > -Anoop-
>> >> >
>> >> > On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 1:23 AM, Ted Yu <yuzhihong@gmail.com>
wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > > That is a feasible option.
>> >> > >
>> >> > > I have changed Fix Version of HBASE-10850 to 0.98.2
>> >> > >
>> >> > > Cheers
>> >> > >
>> >> > >
>> >> > > On Thu, Apr 3, 2014 at 12:16 PM, lars hofhansl <larsh@apache.org>
>> >> wrote:
>> >> > >
>> >> > > > To be fair, Phoenix should not have relied on an unreleased
>> >> dependency.
>> >> > > (I
>> >> > > > know there are corporate timing issues, but they really should
>> not
>> >> > force
>> >> > > us
>> >> > > > into situations like these).
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > As far as I understand the issue, it not just a performance
but
>> can
>> >> > lead
>> >> > > > to incorrect results.
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > Then again, this issue has existed in all of 0.96 and 0.98
so far
>> >> > (over 5
>> >> > > > months).
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > So, I'd be in favor of releasing 0.98.1 now, and doing 0.98.2
>> soon,
>> >> in
>> >> > 14
>> >> > > > or 20 days (that would also pull back some of the time lost
in
>> the
>> >> > > 0.98.1RC
>> >> > > > cycle).
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > -- Lars
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > ________________________________
>> >> > > >  From: James Taylor <jtaylor@salesforce.com>
>> >> > > > To: "user@hbase.apache.org" <user@hbase.apache.org>
>> >> > > > Cc: "dev@hbase.apache.org" <dev@hbase.apache.org>
>> >> > > > Sent: Thursday, April 3, 2014 8:57 AM
>> >> > > > Subject: Re: [VOTE] The 4th HBase 0.98.1 release candidate
(RC3)
>> is
>> >> > > > available for download
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > I implore you to stick with releasing RC3. Phoenix 4.0 has
no
>> >> release
>> >> > it
>> >> > > > can currently run on. Phoenix doesn't use
>> SingleColumnValueFilter,
>> >> so
>> >> > it
>> >> > > > seems that HBASE-10850 has no impact wrt Phoenix. Can't we
get
>> these
>> >> > > > additional bugs in 0.98.2 - it's one month away [1]?
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > >     James
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mythical_Man-Month
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > On Thu, Apr 3, 2014 at 3:34 AM, ramkrishna vasudevan <
>> >> > > > ramkrishna.s.vasudevan@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > > Will target HBASE-10899 also then by that time.
>> >> > > > >
>> >> > > > > Regards
>> >> > > > > Ram
>> >> > > > >
>> >> > > > >
>> >> > > > > On Thu, Apr 3, 2014 at 3:47 PM, Ted Yu <yuzhihong@gmail.com>
>> >> wrote:
>> >> > > > >
>> >> > > > > > Understood, Andy.
>> >> > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > I have integrated fix for HBASE-10850 to 0.98
>> >> > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > Cheers
>> >> > > > > >
>> >> > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > On Thu, Apr 3, 2014 at 3:00 AM, Andrew Purtell
<
>> >> > > > andrew.purtell@gmail.com
>> >> > > > > > >wrote:
>> >> > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > I will sink this RC and roll a new one tomorrow.
>> >> > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > However, I may very well release the next
RC even if I am
>> the
>> >> > only
>> >> > > +1
>> >> > > > > > vote
>> >> > > > > > > and testing it causes your workstation to
catch fire. So
>> >> please
>> >> > > take
>> >> > > > > the
>> >> > > > > > > time to commit whatever you feel is needed
to the 0.98
>> branch
>> >> or
>> >> > > file
>> >> > > > > > > blockers against 0.98.1 in the next 24 hours.
This is it
>> for
>> >> > > 0.98.1.
>> >> > > > > > >  0.98.2 will happen a mere 30 days from the
0.98.1 release.
>> >> > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > On Apr 3, 2014, at 11:21 AM, Ted Yu <yuzhihong@gmail.com
>> >
>> >> > wrote:
>> >> > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > I agree with Anoop's assessment.
>> >> > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > Cheers
>> >> > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > >> On Apr 3, 2014, at 2:19 AM, Anoop
John <
>> >> anoop.hbase@gmail.com
>> >> > >
>> >> > > > > wrote:
>> >> > > > > > > >>
>> >> > > > > > > >> After analysing HBASE-10850  I think
better we can fix
>> >> this in
>> >> > > > 98.1
>> >> > > > > > > release
>> >> > > > > > > >> itself.  Also Phoenix plan to use
this 98.1 and Phoenix
>> >> uses
>> >> > > > > essential
>> >> > > > > > > CF
>> >> > > > > > > >> optimization.
>> >> > > > > > > >>
>> >> > > > > > > >> Also HBASE-10854 can be included
in 98.1 in such a case,
>> >> > > > > > > >>
>> >> > > > > > > >> Considering those we need a new RC.
>> >> > > > > > > >>
>> >> > > > > > > >> -Anoop-
>> >> > > > > > > >>
>> >> > > > > > > >> On Tue, Apr 1, 2014 at 10:19 AM,
ramkrishna vasudevan <
>> >> > > > > > > >> ramkrishna.s.vasudevan@gmail.com>
wrote:
>> >> > > > > > > >>
>> >> > > > > > > >>> +1 on the RC.
>> >> > > > > > > >>> Checked the signature.
>> >> > > > > > > >>> Downloaded the source, built
and ran the testcases.
>> >> > > > > > > >>> Ran Integration Tests with ACL
and Visibility labels.
>> >> > >  Everything
>> >> > > > > > looks
>> >> > > > > > > >>> fine.
>> >> > > > > > > >>> Compaction, flushes etc too.
>> >> > > > > > > >>>
>> >> > > > > > > >>> Regards
>> >> > > > > > > >>> Ram
>> >> > > > > > > >>>
>> >> > > > > > > >>>
>> >> > > > > > > >>>
>> >> > > > > > > >>>> On Tue, Apr 1, 2014 at 2:14
AM, Elliott Clark <
>> >> > > > eclark@apache.org>
>> >> > > > > > > wrote:
>> >> > > > > > > >>>>
>> >> > > > > > > >>>> +1
>> >> > > > > > > >>>>
>> >> > > > > > > >>>> Checked the hash
>> >> > > > > > > >>>> Checked the tar layout.
>> >> > > > > > > >>>> Played with a single node.
 Everything seemed good
>> after
>> >> > ITBLL
>> >> > > > > > > >>>>
>> >> > > > > > > >>>>
>> >> > > > > > > >>>>> On Mon, Mar 31, 2014
at 9:23 AM, Stack <
>> >> stack@duboce.net>
>> >> > > > wrote:
>> >> > > > > > > >>>>>
>> >> > > > > > > >>>>> +1
>> >> > > > > > > >>>>>
>> >> > > > > > > >>>>> The hash is good.  Doc.
and layout looks good.  UI
>> seems
>> >> > > fine.
>> >> > > > > > > >>>>>
>> >> > > > > > > >>>>> Ran on small cluster
w/ default hadoop 2.2 in hbase
>> >> > against a
>> >> > > > tip
>> >> > > > > > of
>> >> > > > > > > >>> the
>> >> > > > > > > >>>>> branch hadoop 2.4 cluster.
 Seems to basically work
>> >> (small
>> >> > > big
>> >> > > > > > linked
>> >> > > > > > > >>>> list
>> >> > > > > > > >>>>> test worked).
>> >> > > > > > > >>>>>
>> >> > > > > > > >>>>> TSDB seems to work fine
against this RC.
>> >> > > > > > > >>>>>
>> >> > > > > > > >>>>> I don't mean to be stealing
our Jon's thunder but in
>> >> case
>> >> > he
>> >> > > is
>> >> > > > > too
>> >> > > > > > > >>>>> occupied to vote here,
I'll note that he has gotten
>> our
>> >> > > > internal
>> >> > > > > > rig
>> >> > > > > > > >>>>> running against the tip
of the 0.98 branch and it has
>> >> been
>> >> > > > > passing
>> >> > > > > > > >>> green
>> >> > > > > > > >>>>> running IT tests on a
small cluster over hours.
>> >> > > > > > > >>>>>
>> >> > > > > > > >>>>> St.Ack
>> >> > > > > > > >>>>>
>> >> > > > > > > >>>>>
>> >> > > > > > > >>>>>
>> >> > > > > > > >>>>>
>> >> > > > > > > >>>>> On Sun, Mar 30, 2014
at 12:49 AM, Andrew Purtell <
>> >> > > > > > > apurtell@apache.org
>> >> > > > > > > >>>>>> wrote:
>> >> > > > > > > >>>>>
>> >> > > > > > > >>>>>> The 4th HBase 0.98.1
release candidate (RC3) is
>> >> available
>> >> > > for
>> >> > > > > > > >>> download
>> >> > > > > > > >>>> at
>> >> > > > > > > >>>>>> http://people.apache.org/~apurtell/0.98.1RC3/
and
>> >> Maven
>> >> > > > > artifacts
>> >> > > > > > > >>> are
>> >> > > > > > > >>>>> also
>> >> > > > > > > >>>>>> available in the
temporary repository
>> >> > > > > > > >>>
>> >> > > > > >
>> >> > >
>> >> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachehbase-1016
>> >> > > > > > > >>>>>>
>> >> > > > > > > >>>>>> Signed with my code
signing key D5365CCD.
>> >> > > > > > > >>>>>>
>> >> > > > > > > >>>>>> The issues resolved
in this release can be found
>> here:
>> >> > > > > > > >>>
>> >> > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > >
>> >> > > > >
>> >> > > >
>> >> > >
>> >> >
>> >>
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=12310753&version=12325664
>> >> > > > > > > >>>>>>
>> >> > > > > > > >>>>>>
>> >> > > > > > > >>>>>> Please try out the
candidate and vote +1/-1 by
>> midnight
>> >> > > > Pacific
>> >> > > > > > Time
>> >> > > > > > > >>>>> (00:00
>> >> > > > > > > >>>>>> PDT) on April 6 on
whether or not we should release
>> >> this
>> >> > as
>> >> > > > > > 0.98.1.
>> >> > > > > > > >>>>>>
>> >> > > > > > > >>>>>> --
>> >> > > > > > > >>>>>> Best regards,
>> >> > > > > > > >>>>>>
>> >> > > > > > > >>>>>>  - Andy
>> >> > > > > > > >>>>>>
>> >> > > > > > > >>>>>> Problems worthy of
attack prove their worth by
>> hitting
>> >> > > back. -
>> >> > > > > > Piet
>> >> > > > > > > >>>> Hein
>> >> > > > > > > >>>>>> (via Tom White)
>> >> > > > > > > >>>
>> >> > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > >
>> >> > > > >
>> >> > > >
>> >> > >
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > Best regards,
>> >
>> >    - Andy
>> >
>> > Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet Hein
>> > (via Tom White)
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Best regards,
>>
>>    - Andy
>>
>> Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet Hein
>> (via Tom White)
>>
>


-- 
    Fabien Le Gallo
* Software Engineer * * , * * Capptain *
    ------------------------------
  * e. * flegallo@capptain.com
 * w. * http://www.capptain.com
 * a. * 18 rue Tronchet, 75008 Paris, France
  <https://www.facebook.com/capptain?utm_source=WiseStamp&utm_medium=email&utm_term=&utm_content=&utm_campaign=signature>
<https://twitter.com/capptain_hq?utm_source=WiseStamp&utm_medium=email&utm_term=&utm_content=&utm_campaign=signature>
<http://www.capptain.com/feed/?utm_source=WiseStamp&utm_medium=email&utm_term=&utm_content=&utm_campaign=signature>
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oDowgVp4zmA?utm_source=WiseStamp&utm_medium=email&utm_term=&utm_content=&utm_campaign=signature>
    4 Tips to Market Your App
<http://www.capptain.com/2014/03/26/4-tips-for-marketing-your-app/?utm_source=WiseStamp&utm_medium=email&utm_term=&utm_content=&utm_campaign=signature>

<http://www.capptain.com/contact/?utm_source=WiseStamp&utm_medium=email&utm_term=&utm_content=&utm_campaign=signature>
  IMPORTANT: The contents of this email and any attachments are
confidential. They are intended for the named recipient(s) only. If you
have received this email by mistake, please notify the sender immediately
and do not disclose the contents to anyone or make copies thereof.

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