hbase-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Peter Somogyi <psomo...@cloudera.com>
Subject Re: Release 1.4.0 update
Date Wed, 29 Nov 2017 20:38:08 GMT
HBASE-19188 was just resolved. :)

On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 8:12 PM, Andrew Purtell <apurtell@apache.org> wrote:

> I come back to find HBASE-19188 is a blocker. :-/
> Need to resolve it
>
> On Sat, Nov 18, 2017 at 10:30 AM, Sean Busbey <busbey@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > thanks for all the work as RM on this Andrew!
> >
> > On Sat, Nov 18, 2017 at 12:19 PM, Andrew Purtell
> > <andrew.purtell@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Everything is in and ready to go. I'm out next week for the
> Thanksgiving
> > > holiday, but will be back first week in December.
> > >
> > > Here is what I anticipate:
> > >
> > >    - December 4
> > >       - 1.4.0 RC0 binaries will be available.
> > >       - Voting begins.
> > >       - Preflight checks will include RAT check, release audits, and 25
> > >       iterations of the unit test suite.
> > >    - December 5 - 8
> > >       - 24 hours ITBLL
> > >       - PE and YCSB on cluster perf comparison with 1.2
> > >       - PE and YCSB single server profiling with JFR, comparison with
> 1.2
> > >    - December 11
> > >       - Voting concludes
> > >       - Release, or RC1 depending on testing outcome
> > >       - December 18
> > >       - RC1 voting concludes and release, if we need a RC1
> > >
> > >
> > > From now until the 1.4.0 release, please refrain from committing
> > > potentially destabilizing changes or changes to public APIs to
> > branch-1.4.
> > >
> > > On Mon, Nov 13, 2017 at 10:33 AM, Andrew Purtell <
> > andrew.purtell@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > >> On HBASE-19232 we discuss testing the shaded client using YCSB, so
> I'll
> > >> use it to sanity check the shaded client as well as complete a perf
> > >> comparison with 1.2.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> On Sat, Nov 11, 2017 at 9:53 AM, Andrew Purtell <
> > andrew.purtell@gmail.com>
> > >> wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> I'll do a PE comparison between 1.4.0 and 1.3 and/or 1.2. Maybe YSCB
> > too
> > >>> if I have time. Good idea, thanks.
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> > On Nov 11, 2017, at 5:05 AM, Yu Li <carp84@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >>> >
> > >>> > Great to know, really good progress!
> > >>> >
> > >>> > It seems we don't do performance comparison with current stable
> > release
> > >>> > when releasing the first RC of a new branch, but should we do
to
> > avoid
> > >>> > issues like HBASE-14460 (write performance regression from 0.98
to
> > 1.1)?
> > >>> > This is a must-have for us to decide new version for product env
> > here,
> > >>> and
> > >>> > I wonder whether this applies for most users (please forgive my
> > >>> ignorance
> > >>> > if there's any existing policy for this). Thanks.
> > >>> >
> > >>> > bq. Back when we first discussed branching for 1.4 Yu Li asked
for
> > >>> this...
> > >>> > Thanks for remembering this and keeping the promise boss (smile).
> > >>> >
> > >>> > Best Regards,
> > >>> > Yu
> > >>> >
> > >>> >> On 11 November 2017 at 03:30, Andrew Purtell <apurtell@apache.org
> >
> > >>> wrote:
> > >>> >>
> > >>> >> The march to 1.4.0 is progressing.
> > >>> >>
> > >>> >> I've run the unit test suite on a C4 class AWS instance 25
times
> and
> > >>> there
> > >>> >> are no failures. This is ongoing. I'm aiming for 100 runs.
> > >>> >>
> > >>> >> Fix versions are now set up for constructing a reasonable
change
> > log.
> > >>> >>
> > >>> >> With HBASE-19232 applied a build with release audits enabled
will
> > pass.
> > >>> >>
> > >>> >> I backported error-prone support yesterday and will now look
at
> > >>> checkstyle
> > >>> >> and error-prone analyses for important issues.
> > >>> >>
> > >>> >> I'll probably do HBASE-19238 before 1.4.0 goes out so that
neat
> > utility
> > >>> >> will be available.
> > >>> >>
> > >>> >> Back when we first discussed branching for 1.4 Yu Li asked
for
> this:
> > >>> >>
> > >>> >>> One naive question here: from the book
> > >>> >>> <http://hbase.apache.org/book.html#hbase.versioning>
we will add
> > >>> >>> functionality (in a backwards-compatible manner) in minor
> versions,
> > >>> but
> > >>> >> it
> > >>> >>> seems we don't have any one-line description on the differences
> > (what
> > >>> >>> main functionalities have been added) between
> > branch-1.1/1.2/1.3/1.4
> > >>> so
> > >>> >>> user could better decide which version to choose/upgrade.
Should
> we
> > >>> >>> add some explicit document on this? Or release note of
the first
> > >>> release
> > >>> >>> for each branch is enough? Thanks.
> > >>> >>
> > >>> >> and I still agree to do it. I'll write it up while the RC
is under
> > >>> >> evaluation.
> > >>> >>
> > >>> >> ITBLL and replication testing to be performed on a small cluster
> > once
> > >>> we
> > >>> >> have the RC binaries.
> > >>> >>
> > >>> >> Anything else? (Within reason...)
> > >>> >>
> > >>> >> --
> > >>> >> Best regards,
> > >>> >> Andrew
> > >>> >>
> > >>> >> Words like orphans lost among the crosstalk, meaning torn
from
> > truth's
> > >>> >> decrepit hands
> > >>> >>   - A23, Crosstalk
> > >>> >>
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> --
> > >> Best regards,
> > >> Andrew
> > >>
> > >> Words like orphans lost among the crosstalk, meaning torn from truth's
> > >> decrepit hands
> > >>    - A23, Crosstalk
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Best regards,
> > > Andrew
> > >
> > > Words like orphans lost among the crosstalk, meaning torn from truth's
> > > decrepit hands
> > >    - A23, Crosstalk
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Best regards,
> Andrew
>
> Words like orphans lost among the crosstalk, meaning torn from truth's
> decrepit hands
>    - A23, Crosstalk
>

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