bq. can you file a jira w/ patch in the next two days? Sure. I sent out request to close the poll early in another email thread. I will start preparing a patch today and am planning to run the test suite. If I don't get objection in the other thread, I will create the JIRA early Wednesday.
Lastly I want to apologize for the misunderstanding my previous email might have caused. 0.94.0 contains performance improvements no other releases have offered. I am positive on the prosperity of future 0.94 releases. Cheers On Mon, Jul 9, 2012 at 9:15 PM, lars hofhansl <[email protected]> wrote: > Whether 0.94.0 was stable or not is orthorgonal to whether an API can be > deprecated in a point release or not, no? > > Since we appear to have critical mass of support to do that, can you file > a jira w/ patch in the next two days? > Holding up an 0.94.1RC to deprecate the old metric system seems > counterproductive. > > Lastly, please refrain from personal attacks like the ones below. We're > all doing our best to get HBase to the most stable point. > > > -- Lars > ________________________________ > From: Ted Yu <[email protected]> > To: [email protected] > Sent: Monday, July 9, 2012 6:09 PM > Subject: Re: HBase 0.94.1 > > Andy: > Good questions. > > The fact that HBASE-6311 is deemed by Lars to be an important fix adds > support for my reasoning. > > I read the posts under 'ANN: The third hbase 0.94.0 release candidate is > available for download' again. > > There was discussion on 'Dictionary WAL compression making replication not > functional' which later was marked as experimental. > This message from LarsH on May 13th is notable: > > 'If there are no -1's by Wed, May 16th, I'll release RC4 as 0.94.0.' > > To answer the last question below, I think we should allow ample time for > HBase users to try out the RC before declaration of the release. > We're building something that one day would take away significant chunk of > market share from traditional RDBMS vendors. Quality should always be our > top priority. > > I would anticipate wider participation in validating 0.94.1 this time. > To my knowledge, Cloudera, Huawei and Taobao have all been actively testing > 0.94 builds for some time. That was why critical issues were raised. > This should have laid better foundation for the release of 0.94.1 > > Cheers > > On Mon, Jul 9, 2012 at 5:43 PM, Andrew Purtell <[email protected] > >wrote: > > > Ted, > > > > Please explain in more detail why 0.94.0 was not a stable release. And > > what about 0.94.1 is different that it should be considered stable now? > And > > since 0.94.0 was, as you contend, an unstable release, how did it get by > > the RC process and what can we do to improve the RC process so that does > > not happen again? Thanks. > > > > - Andy > > > > On Jul 9, 2012, at 5:04 PM, Ted Yu <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > 0.94.0 was not a stable release. > > > I hope 0.94.1 would be stable. My rationale was that deprecating > current > > > metric classes in the first stable release of 0.94 should be > acceptable. > > > > > > I would humbly listen to other people's opinions, of course. > > > > > > Cheers > > > > > > On Mon, Jul 9, 2012 at 4:46 PM, lars hofhansl <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > >> 0.94 is already out and did not have these deprecated. So deprecating > > them > > >> now in a point release is a bit strange. > > >> Not -1'ing it, just raising that thought here. > > >> > > >> As said below because of HBASE-6311 0.94.1 should get out soon. If > push > > >> comes to shuff are folks ok with: > > >> 1. deprecating in a point release > > >> 2. maybe doing that in 0.94.2 > > >> ? > > >> > > >> Lastly, I don't think we need to deprecate now in order in remove in > > 0.96. > > >> > > >> > > >> Thanks. > > >> > > >> -- Lars > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> ----- Original Message ----- > > >> From: Ted Yu <[email protected]> > > >> To: [email protected]; lars hofhansl <[email protected]> > > >> Cc: > > >> Sent: Monday, July 9, 2012 4:38 PM > > >> Subject: Re: HBase 0.94.1 > > >> > > >> If possible, can you wait for the poll on metrics2 framework to close > ? > > >> If the poll passes, 0.94.1 RC would carry deprecation for (old) metric > > >> classes. > > >> > > >> Thanks > > >> > > >> On Mon, Jul 9, 2012 at 4:07 PM, lars hofhansl <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > >> > > >>> That's great, thanks for setting this up Roman! > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> There're only three issues left against 0.94.1. > > >>> I want to push it out quickly because of HBASE-6311. > > >>> > > >>> I am 90% sure there'll be a first RC this week. > > >>> > > >>> -- Lars > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> ----- Original Message ----- > > >>> From: Roman Shaposhnik <[email protected]> > > >>> To: [email protected]; lars hofhansl <[email protected]> > > >>> Cc: > > >>> Sent: Monday, July 9, 2012 8:35 AM > > >>> Subject: Re: HBase 0.94.1 > > >>> > > >>> On Thu, Jul 5, 2012 at 5:36 PM, lars hofhansl <[email protected]> > > >> wrote: > > >>>> Hi All, > > >>>> > > >>>> I did a pass through all issues against 0.94.1, retargeted some, > fixed > > >>> some others. > > >>>> There're still 13 Major and 1 Minor issue left. Please look through > > the > > >>> issue that you have filed (or are working on), > > >>>> and make a call whether you want this should hold up the next 0.94 > > >>> release. If not, please retarget to 0.94.2 > > >>>> (Or mail me offline if you have questions). > > >>> > > >>> Question: what's the likelihood of 0.94.1 release within next couple > > >>> of weeks? We hooked it up to the trunk of Bigtop and will be > validating > > >>> RCs. > > >>> > > >>> Thanks, > > >>> Roman. > > >>> > > >>> > > >> > > >> > > >
