hbase-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Andrew Purtell <andrew.purt...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [VOTE] HBase 1.2.0 RC2
Date Fri, 12 Feb 2016 22:52:00 GMT
Also in the 0.98 history. 

> On Feb 12, 2016, at 12:04 PM, Nick Dimiduk <ndimiduk@apache.org> wrote:
> 
>> On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 11:44 AM, Sean Busbey <busbey@cloudera.com> wrote:
>> 
>> I *could* make 1.2.0 RC3 that just cherry picks HBASE-15252 onto RC2, but
>> that's going to make things a bit messy and possibly confusing for folks
>> who look for the 1.2.0 tag to be an ancestor of branch-1.2's HEAD.
> 
> We have no strict requirement that a previous release is a git ancestor of
> a later release. So long as the committed set of JIRAs matches, it's fine.
> There's a precedent of this already with earlier 1.x release candidates.
> 
> On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 1:16 PM, Andrew Purtell <andrew.purtell@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> 
>>> Same here. I have started with RC2 but can mostly carry findings to RC3
>>> given only one additional change.
>>> 
>>>> On Feb 12, 2016, at 8:56 AM, Elliott Clark <eclark@apache.org> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> -1 until the dataloss is fixed.
>>>> 
>>>> But assuming that's fixed I would be good for a short vote cycle for
>> the
>>>> next RC.
>>>> 
>>>>> On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 1:02 AM, 张铎 <palomino219@gmail.com>
wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> HBASE-15252 is fixed :).
>>>>> 
>>>>> 2016-02-12 14:00 GMT+08:00 Stack <stack@duboce.net>:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> -1
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> The dataloss issue was just discovered. I think now we know of it,
>> even
>>>>>> though the incidence is rare, would be best to respin the RC.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> You the man Sean,
>>>>>> St.Ack
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 8:59 PM, Stack <stack@duboce.net>
wrote:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 5:04 PM, Sean Busbey <sean.busbey@gmail.com
>>> 
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> On Feb 11, 2016 18:33, "张铎" <palomino219@gmail.com>
wrote:
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Should we include HBASE-15252? It is a data loss issue.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> It's marked major (though perhaps that's off since it's dataloss,
>>> even
>>>>>> if
>>>>>>>> rare). More importantly it's been present in prior releases
for
>> some
>>>>>> time.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Blocking 1.2.0 would put pressure on getting a solution faster,
I
>>>>> think.
>>>>>>>> Additionally, letting the fix wait for 1.2.1 will give me
a good
>>>>>> incentive
>>>>>>>> to keep the path releases on schedule. ;)
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> My 2¢. Happy to roll another RC if folks see it otherwise.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Dataloss. I think we should roll a new RC with short voting
>> timeframe.
>>>>>>> St.Ack
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> --
>> Sean
>> 

Mime
View raw message