hive-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ning Zhang <nzh...@facebook.com>
Subject Re: [VOTE] hive 0.6.0 release candidate 0
Date Tue, 26 Oct 2010 19:04:31 GMT
+1. all unit tests passed for me. 

On Oct 26, 2010, at 10:59 AM, Ashish Thusoo wrote:

> +1 from me as well. Ran the tests and aside from those that I mentioned everything passed
cleanly.
> 
> Ashish
> ________________________________________
> From: Edward Capriolo [edlinuxguru@gmail.com]
> Sent: Monday, October 25, 2010 7:14 PM
> To: dev@hive.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [VOTE] hive 0.6.0 release candidate 0
> 
> On Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at 10:00 PM, John Sichi <jsichi@facebook.com> wrote:
>> At the Hive contributor meeting, we discussed this and came to the conclusion that
the failures reported so far are ignorable based on the Hudson history (and in this case Ning's
observation of JVM inconsistencies with respect to serialization format).
>> 
>> We need one more +1 from a committer before we can release.
>> 
>> JVS
>> 
>> On Oct 25, 2010, at 12:54 PM, Ashish Thusoo wrote:
>> 
>>> I got the following test failures on the release candidate...
>>> 
>>> groupby2.q
>>> groupby3.q
>>> groupby4.q
>>> groupby5.q
>>> groupby6.q
>>> 
>>> not sure if this is just in my env or if others have seen this...
>>> 
>>> A sample of the diff is below and seems to be related to some plan ordering or
some change in plan. Is anyone else getting this?
>>> 
>>> Ashish
>>> 
>>> -------------------------
>>>   [junit] diff -b -I'\(\(<java version=".*" class="java.beans.XMLDecoder">\)\|\(<string>.*/tmp/.*</string>\)\|\(<string>file:.*</string>\)\|\(<string>[0-9]\{10\}</string>\)\|\(<string>/.*/warehouse/.*</string>\)\)'
/data/users/athusoo/tmp/hive-0.6.0/src/build/ql/test/logs/positive/groupby6.q.xml /data/users/athusoo/tmp/hive-0.6.0/src/ql/src/test/results/compiler/plan/groupby6.q.xml
>>>   [junit] 352,353c352
>>>   [junit] <                    <object class="java.lang.Enum" method="valueOf">
>>>   [junit] <                     <class>org.apache.hadoop.hive.ql.plan.GroupByDesc$Mode</class>
>>>   [junit] ---
>>>   [junit] >                    <object class="org.apache.hadoop.hive.ql.plan.GroupByDesc$Mode"
method="valueOf">
>>>   [junit] 878,879c877
>>>   [junit] <          <object class="java.lang.Enum" method="valueOf">
>>>   [junit] <           <class>org.apache.hadoop.hive.ql.plan.GroupByDesc$Mode</class>
>>>   [junit] ---
>>>   [junit] >          <object class="org.apache.hadoop.hive.ql.plan.GroupByDesc$Mode"
method="valueOf">
>>> 
>>> --------------------------
>>> 
>>> ________________________________________
>>> From: John Sichi [jsichi@facebook.com]
>>> Sent: Thursday, October 21, 2010 12:22 PM
>>> To: <dev@hive.apache.org>
>>> Subject: Re: [VOTE] hive 0.6.0 release candidate 0
>>> 
>>> Yeah, the scripts should only be needed in configurations where JDO is told not
to automatically update the schema.  This is recommended for production environments.
>>> 
>>> For this particular release, taking a downtime while running the scripts is a
good idea due to the nature of the changes (e.g. altering the primary key on COLS).  That
needn't be true in general for additive-only changes.
>>> 
>>> JVS
>>> 
>>> On Oct 21, 2010, at 12:14 PM, Edward Capriolo wrote:
>>> 
>>>> On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 6:38 PM, John Sichi <jsichi@facebook.com> wrote:
>>>>> The tarballs are at
>>>>> 
>>>>> http://people.apache.org/~jvs/hive-0.6.0-candidate-0
>>>>> 
>>>>> Carl did some sanity testing on it already, but any additional testing
you can do before voting helps to ensure a quality release.
>>>>> 
>>>>> JVS
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> I am checking it out now. It seems like since i have used two trunk
>>>> versions since hive the view related tables have already been created.
>>>> I do not need the update script.
>>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
> I checked out. Created views, ran some queries on against them, tested
> the new local mode, web interface looks good. +1 Great work everyone.


Mime
View raw message