hbase-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jeffrey Zhong <jzh...@hortonworks.com>
Subject Re: First release candidate for HBase 0.99.2 (RC0) is available. Please vote by 12/06/2014
Date Sat, 06 Dec 2014 20:16:12 GMT

+1 due to it's a dev release.

I've downloaded the RC, run it in pseudo cluster mode and works good. The
issue I hit is when trying to run a integration test and got following
error: 

	java.lang.RuntimeException:
org.apache.hadoop.hbase.DistributedHBaseCluster@dd606a not an instance of
org.apache.hadoop.hbase.MiniHBaseCluster

I guess it's fixed by HBASE-12617.


On 12/5/14, 7:26 PM, "Stack" <stack@duboce.net> wrote:

>+1
>
>Verified signature and md5.
>
>Layout looks right (src and bin).
>
>Build it and ran it.  Looks good.
>
>I've been running it the last few days on a cluster doing testing and
>basically works.
>
>St.Ack
>
>On Fri, Dec 5, 2014 at 5:45 PM, Enis Söztutar <enis@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> We need at least one more vote for this.
>>
>> I had set a shorter (4 days) testing window since this is a
>>non-production
>> release. I can extend the voting period if anybody needs it.
>>
>> Enis
>>
>> On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 3:48 PM, Ted Yu <yuzhihong@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > +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)
>> > > >
>> > >
>> >
>>



-- 
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 that 
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 immediately 
and delete it from your system. Thank You.

Mime
View raw message