phoenix-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From James Taylor <jamestay...@apache.org>
Subject Re: where are we at with the RC?
Date Wed, 13 Jul 2016 08:08:58 GMT
No problem, Tongzhou. I think your change uncovered some existing issues,
mainly environmental issues at test-time in shutting down the IndexTool.
Hopefully we're good to go now.

Thanks,
James

On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 10:05 AM, Simon Wang <simon.wang@airbnb.com.invalid>
wrote:

> Thanks, James!
> I thought PHOENIX-3061 would be a simple change, but it became much more
> complex than I imagined. Thank you, Thomas, Mujtaba, and Ankit for jumping
> in and helping fixing the issues. I will keep studying Phoenix codebase,
> and look to make more contributions in future!
>
> Best,
> Tongzhou (Simon)
>
> > On Jul 13, 2016, at 12:48 AM, James Taylor <jamestaylor@apache.org>
> wrote:
> >
> > Ok, fix checked in. If we get a clean build, let's move ahead with the RC
> > unless anyone knows of any other blockers.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > James
> >
> > On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 9:17 AM, James Taylor <jamestaylor@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Yes, just noticed. I'm looking at it now. Stay tuned.
> >>
> >> On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 9:09 AM, Ankit Singhal <
> ankitsinghal59@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Yes James , But there are test failures after PHOENIX-3061.
> >>> @Thomas/Mujtaba, would you mind helping Tongzhou on the same.
> >>>
> >>> On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 11:08 AM, James Taylor <jamestaylor@apache.org
> >
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> I think we're ready for the RC now, Ankit. Or is there anything
> missing?
> >>>>
> >>>> Thanks,
> >>>> James
> >>>>
> >>>> On Tuesday, July 12, 2016, Ankit Singhal <ankitsinghal59@gmail.com>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> PHOENIX-3063 is committed in 0.98 branch.
> >>>>> After PHOENIX-3061 , IndexTool tests started failing. Need to check
> >>>> whether
> >>>>> the patch is actually causing the error or this fix has uncovered
> some
> >>>> old
> >>>>> bugs.
> >>>>> PHOENIX-3045, I have started working on the review comments, will
> >>> upload
> >>>>> patch soon.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Regards,
> >>>>> Ankit Singhal
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 5:25 PM, James Taylor <
> jamestaylor@apache.org
> >>>>> <javascript:;>>
> >>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> What's left now? Is PHOENIX-3063 really a blocker? Is someone
> >>> working
> >>>> on
> >>>>>> it? Is it a regression? What about PHOENIX-3045?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Are these the only two?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Thanks,
> >>>>>> James
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> On Mon, Jul 11, 2016 at 9:31 PM, Thomas D'Silva <
> >>>> tdsilva@salesforce.com
> >>>>> <javascript:;>>
> >>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> We should also get PHOENIX-2966 into 4.8. Teja is working
on patch
> >>>> and
> >>>>> I
> >>>>>>> should be able to get it committed soon.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Thanks,
> >>>>>>> Thomas
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> On Mon, Jul 11, 2016 at 1:31 AM, Ankit Singhal <
> >>>>> ankitsinghal59@gmail.com <javascript:;>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Thanks Rajesh.  As now all blockers for 4.8 are resolved.
Let me
> >>>>> bring
> >>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>> RC soon.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Regards,
> >>>>>>>> Ankit Singhal
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> On Mon, Jul 11, 2016 at 10:10 AM, rajeshbabu@apache.org
> >>>>> <javascript:;> <
> >>>>>>>> chrajeshbabu32@gmail.com <javascript:;>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> I have committed the upgrade related blockers.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Thanks,
> >>>>>>>>> Rajeshbabu.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> On Thu, Jul 7, 2016 at 10:51 PM, Mujtaba Chohan
<
> >>>>>>> mchohan@salesforce.com <javascript:;>>
> >>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Was with Brian yesterday, PHOENIX-3056 is not
a 4.8 blocker
> >>> for
> >>>>>> them
> >>>>>>>> but
> >>>>>>>>>> good to have if a fix is easy.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Jul 7, 2016 at 2:54 AM, <larsh@apache.org
> >>>> <javascript:;>>
> >>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> I assigned PHOENIX-3056 to 4.8.0, just so
we won't lose
> >>> track
> >>>>> of
> >>>>>>> it.
> >>>>>>>> If
> >>>>>>>>>>> it's not an issue we can move to 4.9.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> ------------------------------
> >>>>>>>>>>> *From:* James Taylor <jamestaylor@apache.org
> >>> <javascript:;>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> *To:* "dev@phoenix.apache.org <javascript:;>"
<
> >>>>> dev@phoenix.apache.org <javascript:;>>; Mujtaba
> >>>>>>>>> Chohan
> >>>>>>>>>> <
> >>>>>>>>>>> mchohan@salesforce.com <javascript:;>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> *Sent:* Thursday, July 7, 2016 1:24 AM
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> *Subject:* Re: where are we at with the
RC?
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> @Ankit, @Mujtaba - where are at now with
the release?
> >>> Would
> >>>> it
> >>>>> be
> >>>>>>>>>> possible
> >>>>>>>>>>> to get a list of the handful of remaining
JIRAs being
> >>>> targeted
> >>>>>> for
> >>>>>>>>>>> 4.8? Is PHOENIX-3056
> >>>>>>>>>>> a blocker?
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
> >>>>>>>>>>> James
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Jul 5, 2016 at 4:21 PM, Josh Elser
<
> >>>> elserj@apache.org
> >>>>> <javascript:;>>
> >>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Just an FYI: I re-opened PHOENIX-3025.
It seems like
> >>> this
> >>>>> broke
> >>>>>>> PQS
> >>>>>>>>>>>> somehow (PQS still expecting to find
Guava in the
> >>>>>>>> o.a.phoenix.shaded
> >>>>>>>>>>>> package). Might just be something to
fix at build time
> >>>>>>> (hopefully,
> >>>>>>>>>>> anyways)
> >>>>>>>>>>>> -- I'm looking at it now.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> rajeshbabu@apache.org <javascript:;>
wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> I think PHOENIX-3045 is blocker
for the release.
> >>> Working
> >>>> on
> >>>>>> it.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, Jul 3, 2016 at 10:21 AM,<larsh@apache.org
> >>>>> <javascript:;>>  wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> I think I have a fix for PHOENIX-2724,
that seems
> >>>> important
> >>>>> to
> >>>>>>> get
> >>>>>>>>> it.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> -- Lars
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>       From: Ankit Singhal<ankitsinghal59@gmail.com
> >>>>> <javascript:;>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> To: James Taylor<jamestaylor@apache.org
> >>> <javascript:;>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Cc: "dev@phoenix.apache.org
<javascript:;>"<
> >>>>> dev@phoenix.apache.org <javascript:;>>;
> >>>>>> Samarth
> >>>>>>>>> Jain<
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> samarth.jain@salesforce.com
<javascript:;>>;
> >>> Rajeshbabu
> >>>>> Chintaguntla<
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> rchintaguntla@hortonworks.com
<javascript:;>>; Thomas
> >>>>> D'Silva<
> >>>>>>>>>> tdsilva@salesforce.com <javascript:;>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> ;
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Mujtaba Chohan<mchohan@salesforce.com
<javascript:;>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sent: Saturday, July 2, 2016
11:03 AM
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: where are we at
with the RC?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Both the two Jiras(PHOENIX-2902,
PHOENIX-2999) are
> >>> ready
> >>>>> with
> >>>>>>>>> review
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> comments but need to test the
upgrade(and drop with
> >>>>> cascade)
> >>>>>> on
> >>>>>>>>>>> cluster.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> And , Waiting for commit of
PHOENIX-2926 and fix for
> >>>> local
> >>>>>>> index
> >>>>>>>>>>> upgrade
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> for multi-tenant table which
is not working with
> >>> latest
> >>>>> patch
> >>>>>>> on
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> PHOENIX-3002.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> We will be able to do this by
Monday only as I and
> >>> Rajesh
> >>>>> are
> >>>>>>> in
> >>>>>>>>>>> transit
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> for 2 days.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think we can target Tuesday
as RC date.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ankit Singhal
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Jul 1, 2016 at 2:02
PM, James Taylor<
> >>>>>>>>> jamestaylor@apache.org <javascript:;>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> How we looking for the RC?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, July 1, 2016,
Samarth Jain<
> >>>>>> samarth.jain@gmail.com <javascript:;>>
> >>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PHOENIX-2724 has a workaround
in PHOENIX-3040 that I
> >>>> have
> >>>>>>>> checked
> >>>>>>>>>> in.
> >>>>>>>>>>> I
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> think we can fix PHOENIX-2724
in a patch release, if
> >>>>>> needed.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The remaining outstanding
JIRAs that I know of are:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PHOENIX-2902
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PHOENIX-29
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PHOENIX-2902
> >>>> 99
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Jun 30, 2016
at 9:48 PM,<larsh@apache.org
> >>>>> <javascript:;>>  wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PHOENIX-3037 (Andy just
committed) needs to get in.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -- Lars
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>     From: Samarth
Jain<samarth@apache.org
> >>>>> <javascript:;>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To: dev<dev@phoenix.apache.org
<javascript:;>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Cc: Ankit Singhal<ankit@apache.org
<javascript:;>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, June
28, 2016 9:58 AM
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: where
are we at with the RC?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PHOENIX-3028 is
in. PHOENIX-2724 is a blocker as of
> >>>> now.
> >>>>>>> Will
> >>>>>>>>> work
> >>>>>>>>>>> on
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> today to see if
it is just a matter of tuning
> >>> phoenix
> >>>>>> config
> >>>>>>>> or
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> something
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> more.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If time permits,
I would like to opportunistically
> >>> get
> >>>>>>>>>> PHOENIX-3035
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at
10:56 PM, James Taylor<
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jamestaylor@apache.org
<javascript:;>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What are the outstanding
JIRAs? Would it be
> >>> possible
> >>>> to
> >>>>>>> update
> >>>>>>>>>> this
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> daily
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> so we can zero in
on getting an RC up? If folks
> >>> could
> >>>>>> commit
> >>>>>>>>> there
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> outstanding
patches (or find a committer to do it
> >>> for
> >>>>>> you),
> >>>>>>>>> that
> >>>>>>>>>> be
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> much
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> appreciated.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> James
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
>
>

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