Return-Path: X-Original-To: apmail-hbase-dev-archive@www.apache.org Delivered-To: apmail-hbase-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by minotaur.apache.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 53258181F2 for ; Fri, 15 Jan 2016 17:05:41 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 90731 invoked by uid 500); 15 Jan 2016 17:05:40 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-hbase-dev-archive@hbase.apache.org Received: (qmail 90626 invoked by uid 500); 15 Jan 2016 17:05:40 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@hbase.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: dev@hbase.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list dev@hbase.apache.org Received: (qmail 89837 invoked by uid 99); 15 Jan 2016 17:05:39 -0000 Received: from Unknown (HELO spamd3-us-west.apache.org) (209.188.14.142) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Fri, 15 Jan 2016 17:05:39 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by spamd3-us-west.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at spamd3-us-west.apache.org) with ESMTP id 777B1180597 for ; Fri, 15 Jan 2016 17:05:39 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at spamd3-us-west.apache.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 2.98 X-Spam-Level: ** X-Spam-Status: No, score=2.98 tagged_above=-999 required=6.31 tests=[DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=disabled Authentication-Results: spamd3-us-west.apache.org (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=cloudera-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com Received: from mx1-eu-west.apache.org ([10.40.0.8]) by localhost (spamd3-us-west.apache.org [10.40.0.10]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id dI9FxZIsn4XY for ; Fri, 15 Jan 2016 17:05:33 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-lb0-f178.google.com (mail-lb0-f178.google.com [209.85.217.178]) by mx1-eu-west.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at mx1-eu-west.apache.org) with ESMTPS id 8521A31AC4 for ; Fri, 15 Jan 2016 17:05:33 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-lb0-f178.google.com with SMTP id cl12so100802201lbc.1 for ; Fri, 15 Jan 2016 09:05:33 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cloudera-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :content-type; bh=3riPggJnFKRwxmvqk5TzFkMisDxDEt2Ad3M+F2QJY20=; b=0mDdux02xI+yViubpgQIEifnMhjWt4s5g+BUg0JtY/aqT0wE3qrKnIqHMuR95q35bH ZSFgdUAuz5z6oQXBz7AfmvJjJ5BcPhq+bFOHqcfEx35dHHb0GuyNy299xucz8h6Kz+IH T9Rbkg90LjBm6s/rfqvi/21sRfjAGICm3/N4wT4lhvrUV8nG//xhW8AnO+wUzytbefRl d8a6I8zyKsDbBmT6rkQz6PWSq1Oxo0mvU/KvDlYPNoci+FKMlHtZfz8C+nDMpBhrNYv6 0OSbtWosfQo86KsxJ4VGanDWBK6Svo6pidmqmOW5hvCFKM0Y6dgq4KiMBaBeJREwIBoN eSbQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:content-type; bh=3riPggJnFKRwxmvqk5TzFkMisDxDEt2Ad3M+F2QJY20=; b=MFudK0t6DXIdGqedmxztuZtulz0A53B1ZxywDor6iQGhzDIkQVXmJ4SXj4om0ijx74 NyBCkEGzZ72SX4Z84v9rdkGvpNiFqT2qeYwvSkfLBW08XmIpQjHP6wvFLNkUrkMKifwu T33IleL+KwWbCbHufz5s4k3pPM5lDfQTpBuR6KInzGofoGv0QQHVPzWM1IhqlCcyEC0Z T/ClflY2gI3vFf8kNZ/xs45StNFfQyT+okvhShFdQ0tVwnycgJnFaVx0yH6jP2iPzJWe wSKq/FEaW3aMv4NmBIqO8cEYq31OTEdK9EbBoK6iNpaf5Fj6Sdv0Yj6QaP/8PswRJdUu KnHQ== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQncL44P4wI/3M8FfBiqKjGp6FGk7mUl3sTtJTWoPld245IKf58Ei6+d3H2yxyU3msxV0CCjY2pYFYxUtYc8bNlcWwtVxUJ9IO397wrKIypy8BPkeOQ= X-Received: by 10.112.184.133 with SMTP id eu5mr3093153lbc.99.1452877532852; Fri, 15 Jan 2016 09:05:32 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.25.159.5 with HTTP; Fri, 15 Jan 2016 09:05:13 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: From: Jonathan Hsieh Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2016 09:05:13 -0800 Message-ID: Subject: Re: 1.1.3RC1 next week To: "dev@hbase.apache.org" Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c3cb343f965b052962693d --001a11c3cb343f965b052962693d Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Nick, I looked at the three reports look good to me. Usually I'm most concerned about removals but HMaster is LimitedPrivate. Jon On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 10:49 PM, Nick Dimiduk wrote: > For the curious, I've run the compatibility script on branch-1.1, against > both 1.1.0 [0] and 1.1.3RC0 [1] tags. Since the resolution on HBASE-14944 > was that the incompatible changes [2] were acceptable given their security > nature and limited scope, I've focused my attention on the changes that > have happened since 1.1.3RC0. > > The changes introduced for controlling additional operations with ProcV2 > are showing up in the latest reports. However, these too look limited in > scope to LimitedPrivate and/or Evolving classes, so they are acceptable by > my understanding of our compatibility guidelines. > > I'd appreciate another pair of eyes on these reports to make sure I didn't > miss anything. I'd hate to sink another RC due to things we should be aware > of well in advance. > > Thanks, > -n > > [0]: http://home.apache.org/~ndimiduk/1.1.0_branch-1.1_compat_report.html > [1]: > http://home.apache.org/~ndimiduk/1.1.3RC0_branch-1.1_compat_report.html > [2]: http://home.apache.org/~ndimiduk/1.1.0_1.1.3RC0_compat_report.html > > On Mon, Jan 4, 2016 at 11:26 PM, Nick Dimiduk wrote: > > > Happy New Year! > > > > I'd like to pick back up the branch-1.1 release. Since we're already busy > > with 1.2 and 0.98 is eminent, I'll let the dust settle on at least one of > > those releases before posting RC1; probably next week though possibly the > > week following, depending on how the votes go. > > > > As always, let me know if you have any concerns. > > > > Thanks, > > Nick > > > -- // Jonathan Hsieh (shay) // HBase Tech Lead, Software Engineer, Cloudera // jon@cloudera.com // @jmhsieh --001a11c3cb343f965b052962693d--