hbase-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ted Yu <yuzhih...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: First release candidate for HBase 0.99.2 (RC0) is available. Please vote by 12/06/2014
Date Thu, 04 Dec 2014 23:48:35 GMT
+1

Checked the book
Checked dir layout in bin and src artifacts
Ran unit test suite - passed.

Will do some more validation, time permitting.

On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 2:35 PM, Enis Söztutar <enis@apache.org> wrote:

> Setting aside the Interface discussions, here is my +1 for the RC.
>
> +1
>
> Downloaded artifacts,
> Checked sigs,
> Checked crcs,
> Checked the book
> Checked dir layout in bin and src artifacts
> Checked jars of hbase and hadoop in bin artifact
> Checked version strings
> Run in local mode
> Run basic smoke tests in shell
> Run LTT
> Build the src artifact with hadoop versions 2.2.0,2.3.0,2.4.0, 2.5.0.
> 2.6.0. Compilation with 2.4.0 and before is broken, but it is ok for
> this RC. See HBASE-12637
> Checked maven repository artifacts by running the hbase-downstreamer
> project test.
>
>
> Reminder, Sat is the last day to vote on this RC. Please plan to spend some
> time on the RC so that we can iron out issues for the next 1.0.0RC.
>
> Enis
>
> On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 10:38 AM, Andrew Purtell <apurtell@apache.org>
> wrote:
>
> > See https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PHOENIX-1501. Pardon the noise
> > on
> > a VOTE thread.
> >
> > On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 10:31 AM, Andrew Purtell <apurtell@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Phoenix PMC here, although I'm only speaking my own opinion. Concur,
> the
> > > code takes liberties... We need to clean our own house.
> > >
> > > On Wed, Dec 3, 2014 at 10:59 AM, Stack <stack@duboce.net> wrote:
> > >
> > >> On Wed, Dec 3, 2014 at 8:07 AM, Sean Busbey <busbey@cloudera.com>
> > wrote:
> > >>
> > >> > On Wed, Dec 3, 2014 at 9:44 AM, Ted Yu <yuzhihong@gmail.com>
wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> > > Compiling Phoenix master against 0.99.2, I got:
> > >> > > http://pastebin.com/gaxCs8fT
> > >> > >
> > >> > > Some removed methods are in HBase classes that are marked
> > >> > > with @InterfaceAudience.Private
> > >> > > I want to get some opinion on whether such methods should be
> > >> deprecated
> > >> > > first.
> > >> > >
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> There is no room for 'opinion' in this area. A bunch of work has been
> > done
> > >> to remove ambiguity around our guarantees. The law as it stands is:
> > >> InterfaceAudience.Private means: "APIs for HBase internals developers.
> > No
> > >> guarantees on compatibility or availability in future versions. ..."
> > (From
> > >> http://hbase.apache.org/book.html#code.standards).  We can add
> verbiage
> > >> but
> > >> you would have to have a perverse squint to interpret this "no
> > guarantees"
> > >> as "no guarantees -- after a deprecation cycle".
> > >>
> > >> That said, we are an accommodating lot.  I suggest you take the list
> > over
> > >> to phoenix dev and that phoenix comes back with explicit asks rather
> > than
> > >> this blanket list taken from a compile against their master branch.
> > >>
> > >> As per Sean, this discussion does not belong on a dev release RC vote
> > >> thread, nor should it hold up its release.
> > >> St.Ack
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > 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)
> >
>

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