Mailing-List: contact dev-help@hbase.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@hbase.apache.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
From: =?UTF-8?Q?Enis_S=C3=B6ztutar?= <enis@apache.org>
Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2015 11:25:42 -0700
Message-ID: 
 <CAMUu0w_boNRx-Uvefipnzt6fR8YrvdvRFHkggmeSj3JLbZyawg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: [RESULT] [VOTE] Third release candidate for HBase 1.0.1 (RC2) is
 available. Please vote by April 24 2015
To: Andrew Purtell <apurtell@apache.org>
Cc: "dev@hbase.apache.org" <dev@hbase.apache.org>,
 =?UTF-8?Q?Enis_S=C3=B6ztutar?= <enis@apache.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c3e712bb3fc70514ccfe50

--001a11c3e712bb3fc70514ccfe50
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

The vote has passed with 3 binding and 1 non-binding +1's and one -0. I'll
push the release artifacts shortly.

Thanks for testing the release!
Enis

On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 1:42 PM, Andrew Purtell <apurtell@apache.org> wrote=
:

> +1
>
> Checked signatures
> Unpacked tarballs, layout looks good
> Built from source
> RAT check passed
> Checked docs. Minor issue with logo asset not loading, not critical.
> Started single node cluster and ran LTT of 1M keys, no unusual or
> unexpected warnings or errors, reported latencies were stable after warmu=
p
>
>
>
> On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 12:10 PM, Enis S=C3=B6ztutar <enis@apache.org> wr=
ote:
>
>> UT run for this RC is at
>> https://builds.apache.org/view/All/job/HBase-1.0.1RC2/4/. Previous runs
>> had
>> some flaky failures.
>>
>> Kind reminder that the RC vote has been extended until tonight since we
>> did
>> not get enough votes. Please spend some time for the RC if you can.
>>
>> Thanks.
>> Enis
>>
>> On Sun, Apr 26, 2015 at 9:46 PM, Enis S=C3=B6ztutar <enis@apache.org> wr=
ote:
>>
>> > Here is my +1 for the RC.
>> >
>> > Checked sigs, crcs,
>> > Checked layout, jars
>> > Checked the book
>> > Run local mode
>> > Run on a 5 node cluster
>> > Run smoke test, simple shell commands
>> > Run LTT with 1M and different encodings / compression
>> > Run ITBLL, wrote 100M nodes
>> > Test with 1.0.0 and 0.98.12 clients
>> >
>> > Thanks Ted and Josh for testing the RC. We need one more +1. Anybody
>> else
>> > wants to test? I'll extend the vote until tomorrow midnight PDT.
>> >
>> > Enis
>> >
>> >
>> > On Sat, Apr 25, 2015 at 9:16 AM, Andrew Purtell <apurtell@apache.org>
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> >> +1 for resuming the vote.
>> >>
>> >> On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 9:47 PM, Enis S=C3=B6ztutar <enis@apache.org>
>> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > Yes, consider voting resumed.
>> >> > Andrew, is +1 for the RC or for resuming voting?
>> >> >
>> >> > Let me extend the VOTE until Sunday 11:59PM PDT for lost time.
>> >> >
>> >> > Enis
>> >> >
>> >> > On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 1:55 PM, Andrew Purtell <apurtell@apache.or=
g
>> >
>> >> > wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > > +1
>> >> > >
>> >> > > On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 1:35 PM, Stack <stack@duboce.net> wrote:
>> >> > >
>> >> > > > Can this VOTE thread come back to life now?
>> >> > > > St.Ack
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 11:15 AM, Enis S=C3=B6ztutar <
>> enis.soz@gmail.com
>> >> >
>> >> > > > wrote:
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > > On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 10:19 AM, Andrew Purtell <
>> >> > apurtell@apache.org>
>> >> > > > > wrote:
>> >> > > > >
>> >> > > > > > =E2=80=8BLet's postpone this vote.
>> >> > > > > >
>> >> > > > >
>> >> > > > > Agreed.
>> >> > > > >
>> >> > > > >
>> >> > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > See the threads on dev@ titled "=E2=80=8BClarifying interfa=
ce
>> evolution
>> >> > > > freedom
>> >> > > > > in
>> >> > > > > > patch releases" and "The Renumbering (proposed)".
>> >> > > > > >
>> >> > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 4:31 PM, Sean Busbey <
>> >> busbey@cloudera.com>
>> >> > > > > wrote:
>> >> > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > On Apr 22, 2015 4:40 PM, "Enis S=C3=B6ztutar" <
>> enis.soz@gmail.com>
>> >> > > wrote:
>> >> > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > I think the agreement is to continue with the RC.
>> >> > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > One note... in the japi report, I was a little
>> surprised
>> >> > when I
>> >> > > > > > noticed
>> >> > > > > > > > method additions to InterfaceAudience.Public annotated
>> >> classes.
>> >> > > > This
>> >> > > > > > > means
>> >> > > > > > > > that a user could write code against 1.0.1 that would n=
ot
>> >> work
>> >> > > > > against
>> >> > > > > > > > 1.0.0 which seems undesirable for a bugfix release. I
>> read
>> >> over
>> >> > > the
>> >> > > > > > book
>> >> > > > > > > > section on compatibility and didn't see this addressed,
>> so I
>> >> > > > thought
>> >> > > > > > I'd
>> >> > > > > > > > ask.
>> >> > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > I think this is allowed. Did not check it though.
>> >> > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > Enis
>> >> > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > It's not allowed normally under semver. There's already
>> >> another
>> >> > > > thread
>> >> > > > > > > going on this though.
>> >> > > > > > >
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Best regards,
>
>    - Andy
>
> Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet Hein
> (via Tom White)
>

--001a11c3e712bb3fc70514ccfe50--