hbase-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From ramkrishna vasudevan <ramkrishna.s.vasude...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [VOTE] The 4th HBase 0.98.1 release candidate (RC3) is available for download
Date Fri, 04 Apr 2014 02:23:38 GMT
+1 on getting this RC3 out as the release and targetting the bug for
0.98.2.

Regards
Ram


On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 7:49 AM, Anoop John <anoop.hbase@gmail.com> wrote:

> >Phoenix 4.0 has no release it can currently run on
> >Can't we get these additional bugs in 0.98.2 - it's one month away
>
> I was thinking that for Phoenix 4.0 *release* the 98.1 is needed..  Thats
> why was in favor of correcting the bug in 98.1 itself..  Ya 98.2 can come
> out in a month time and at that time 4.0 can upgrade to that..  Sounds
> good.. I am ready to again cast my +1 for this RC.
>
>
> >@Anoop - would you mind verifying whether or not
> the TestSCVFWithMiniCluster written as a Phoenix query returns the correct
> results?
>
> I will check this James..  I think it might be there.  Any way, even if the
> bug is there, there can be a work around solution in Phoenix filter code
> which I can try out  (If you would like to get)
>
> -Anoop-
>
> On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 1:23 AM, Ted Yu <yuzhihong@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > That is a feasible option.
> >
> > I have changed Fix Version of HBASE-10850 to 0.98.2
> >
> > Cheers
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Apr 3, 2014 at 12:16 PM, lars hofhansl <larsh@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> > > To be fair, Phoenix should not have relied on an unreleased dependency.
> > (I
> > > know there are corporate timing issues, but they really should not
> force
> > us
> > > into situations like these).
> > >
> > > As far as I understand the issue, it not just a performance but can
> lead
> > > to incorrect results.
> > >
> > > Then again, this issue has existed in all of 0.96 and 0.98 so far
> (over 5
> > > months).
> > >
> > > So, I'd be in favor of releasing 0.98.1 now, and doing 0.98.2 soon, in
> 14
> > > or 20 days (that would also pull back some of the time lost in the
> > 0.98.1RC
> > > cycle).
> > >
> > > -- Lars
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > >  From: James Taylor <jtaylor@salesforce.com>
> > > To: "user@hbase.apache.org" <user@hbase.apache.org>
> > > Cc: "dev@hbase.apache.org" <dev@hbase.apache.org>
> > > Sent: Thursday, April 3, 2014 8:57 AM
> > > Subject: Re: [VOTE] The 4th HBase 0.98.1 release candidate (RC3) is
> > > available for download
> > >
> > >
> > > I implore you to stick with releasing RC3. Phoenix 4.0 has no release
> it
> > > can currently run on. Phoenix doesn't use SingleColumnValueFilter, so
> it
> > > seems that HBASE-10850 has no impact wrt Phoenix. Can't we get these
> > > additional bugs in 0.98.2 - it's one month away [1]?
> > >
> > >     James
> > >
> > > [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mythical_Man-Month
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Thu, Apr 3, 2014 at 3:34 AM, ramkrishna vasudevan <
> > > ramkrishna.s.vasudevan@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Will target HBASE-10899 also then by that time.
> > > >
> > > > Regards
> > > > Ram
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, Apr 3, 2014 at 3:47 PM, Ted Yu <yuzhihong@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Understood, Andy.
> > > > >
> > > > > I have integrated fix for HBASE-10850 to 0.98
> > > > >
> > > > > Cheers
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Thu, Apr 3, 2014 at 3:00 AM, Andrew Purtell <
> > > andrew.purtell@gmail.com
> > > > > >wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > I will sink this RC and roll a new one tomorrow.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > However, I may very well release the next RC even if I am the
> only
> > +1
> > > > > vote
> > > > > > and testing it causes your workstation to catch fire. So please
> > take
> > > > the
> > > > > > time to commit whatever you feel is needed to the 0.98 branch
or
> > file
> > > > > > blockers against 0.98.1 in the next 24 hours. This is it for
> > 0.98.1.
> > > > > >  0.98.2 will happen a mere 30 days from the 0.98.1 release.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Apr 3, 2014, at 11:21 AM, Ted Yu <yuzhihong@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I agree with Anoop's assessment.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Cheers
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> On Apr 3, 2014, at 2:19 AM, Anoop John <anoop.hbase@gmail.com
> >
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> After analysing HBASE-10850  I think better we can
fix this in
> > > 98.1
> > > > > > release
> > > > > > >> itself.  Also Phoenix plan to use this 98.1 and Phoenix
uses
> > > > essential
> > > > > > CF
> > > > > > >> optimization.
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> Also HBASE-10854 can be included in 98.1 in such a
case,
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> Considering those we need a new RC.
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> -Anoop-
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> On Tue, Apr 1, 2014 at 10:19 AM, ramkrishna vasudevan
<
> > > > > > >> ramkrishna.s.vasudevan@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>> +1 on the RC.
> > > > > > >>> Checked the signature.
> > > > > > >>> Downloaded the source, built and ran the testcases.
> > > > > > >>> Ran Integration Tests with ACL and Visibility labels.
> >  Everything
> > > > > looks
> > > > > > >>> fine.
> > > > > > >>> Compaction, flushes etc too.
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>> Regards
> > > > > > >>> Ram
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>>> On Tue, Apr 1, 2014 at 2:14 AM, Elliott Clark
<
> > > eclark@apache.org>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>> +1
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>> Checked the hash
> > > > > > >>>> Checked the tar layout.
> > > > > > >>>> Played with a single node.  Everything seemed
good after
> ITBLL
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>>> On Mon, Mar 31, 2014 at 9:23 AM, Stack
<stack@duboce.net>
> > > wrote:
> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>> +1
> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>> The hash is good.  Doc. and layout looks
good.  UI seems
> > fine.
> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>> Ran on small cluster w/ default hadoop
2.2 in hbase
> against a
> > > tip
> > > > > of
> > > > > > >>> the
> > > > > > >>>>> branch hadoop 2.4 cluster.  Seems to basically
work (small
> > big
> > > > > linked
> > > > > > >>>> list
> > > > > > >>>>> test worked).
> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>> TSDB seems to work fine against this RC.
> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>> I don't mean to be stealing our Jon's thunder
but in case
> he
> > is
> > > > too
> > > > > > >>>>> occupied to vote here, I'll note that he
has gotten our
> > > internal
> > > > > rig
> > > > > > >>>>> running against the tip of the 0.98 branch
and it has been
> > > > passing
> > > > > > >>> green
> > > > > > >>>>> running IT tests on a small cluster over
hours.
> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>> St.Ack
> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>> On Sun, Mar 30, 2014 at 12:49 AM, Andrew
Purtell <
> > > > > > apurtell@apache.org
> > > > > > >>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>> The 4th HBase 0.98.1 release candidate
(RC3) is available
> > for
> > > > > > >>> download
> > > > > > >>>> at
> > > > > > >>>>>> http://people.apache.org/~apurtell/0.98.1RC3/
and Maven
> > > > artifacts
> > > > > > >>> are
> > > > > > >>>>> also
> > > > > > >>>>>> available in the temporary repository
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > >
> > https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachehbase-1016
> > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>> Signed with my code signing key D5365CCD.
> > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>> The issues resolved in this release
can be found here:
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=12310753&version=12325664
> > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>> Please try out the candidate and vote
+1/-1 by midnight
> > > Pacific
> > > > > Time
> > > > > > >>>>> (00:00
> > > > > > >>>>>> PDT) on April 6 on whether or not we
should release this
> as
> > > > > 0.98.1.
> > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>> --
> > > > > > >>>>>> Best regards,
> > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>  - Andy
> > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>> Problems worthy of attack prove their
worth by hitting
> > back. -
> > > > > Piet
> > > > > > >>>> Hein
> > > > > > >>>>>> (via Tom White)
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

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