J-D: So far we have 2 +1 (binding) and 2 +1 (non-binding), no -1 on RC1. Do you think I can roll this RC as 0.92.2 ?
Thanks On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 12:07 PM, Elliott Clark <ecl...@stumbleupon.com>wrote: > So it looks like I must have just caught a region as it was moving or > something. I can't seem to re-produce that error. So I'm fully +1. > Sorry for the false alarm. > > On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 11:55 AM, Elliott Clark <ecl...@stumbleupon.com> > wrote: > > I'm +1'ish > > > > Spun up a 0.92.1 cluster wrote some data. Then spun up a 0.92.2RC and > > everything worked. > > Ran LoadTestTool while killing region servers. Everything recovered > well. > > Ran PerformanceEvaluation everything went well > > > > > > However when trying to manually split a table while tests were running > > I was unable to. On investigating more I found that manual splits > > appear to be broken in 0.92. So I filed HBASE-6767. I don't think > > it's enough to sink the rc but it was something that I noticed. > > > > > > On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 9:47 AM, Ted Yu <yuzhih...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> We're having more and more releases across 0.92, 0.94 and soon 0.96 > >> branches. > >> It would be wise to revisit the historical convention. > >> > >> Thanks for bringing this up, J-D. > >> > >> On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 9:33 AM, Jean-Daniel Cryans < > jdcry...@apache.org>wrote: > >> > >>> > Usually it takes 3 +1s by committers. Maybe hang a little while to > >>> > get another one or so? > >>> > >>> Little nit, it's actually 3 PMC members. Historically committers were > >>> also PMC members but this changed recently. > >>> > >>> I'm referring to http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html > >>> > >>> We may want to eventually do like Hadoop and have our own bylaws: > >>> http://hadoop.apache.org/bylaws.html > >>> > >>> J-D > >>> >
