I was going to +1 the release, with the following checks I did: - Checked md5 sums - Checked gpg signature (gpg --verify ) - Checked included documentation book.html, etc. - Running unit tests (passed on unsecure, secure) - Started in local mode, run LoadTestTool - integration tests (not working fully properly, but expected since HBASE-7521 is not in yet)
I guess this means that the release candidate has sunk, right? Enis On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 4:59 PM, Stack <[email protected]> wrote: > Good catch Jon. > > We need to be vigilant here all. > > Incompatibilities cost users and those following behind us as they burn > cycles doing gymnastics trying to get over the incompatibility -- if it is > possible to get over the incompatibility at all. They make us look bad. > Worse, usually the incompatibility is found months later after we have all > moved on and have long forgot what it was we committed (and even why) so > all the more reason to be on the look out at commit time. > > St.Ack > > > On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 4:48 PM, Jonathan Hsieh <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Apache Hat: What a particular vendor chooses to puts in its releases > > shouldn't affect an Apache release and especially if we are breaking > > the > > project's versioning / compatibility rules. > > > > Jon. > > > > On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 4:32 PM, Ted Yu <[email protected]> wrote: > > > I downloaded hadoop-0.20.2+737 from Cloudera website. > > > > > > I found getShortUserName() in UserGroupInformation > > > > > > Haven't checked other 0.20.x source code yet. > > > > > > FYI > > > > > > On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 4:24 PM, Jonathan Hsieh <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > >> Hey guys, I saw HBASE-7814 [1] -- a backport committed to 0.94 that > > >> makes HBase 0.94 now require Hadoop 1.0 (instead of the older > > >> hadoops). This was supposed to be a new requirement for hbase 0.96.0. > > >> [2] > > >> > > >> Are we ok with making the next 0.94 upgrade incompatible? (And if we > > >> are we need to release note this kind of stuff). > > >> > > >> Jon. > > >> > > >> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-7814 > > >> > > >> [2] > > >> > > > http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/hbase-dev/201210.mbox/%3ccadcmmghtqx73jzte4schy04iqs9npzp3u84hm2sm7icl6r8...@mail.gmail.com%3E > > >> > > >> > > >> On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 11:56 AM, Enis Söztutar <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > >> > The backporting situation for 0.94 is an exception it seems, because > > of > > >> the > > >> > fact that 96 is so late. But until 96 comes out, we can keep up the > > >> current > > >> > approach. It has worked mostly for the time being. > > >> > > > >> > Enis > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 5:20 PM, Andrew Purtell <[email protected] > > > > >> wrote: > > >> > > > >> >> That said, let's make sure every backport has meaningful > > justification > > >> >> (determined by consensus). > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 5:19 PM, Andrew Purtell < > [email protected]> > > >> >> wrote: > > >> >> > > >> >> > -1 until we have an actual stable 0.96 release. > > >> >> > > > >> >> > > > >> >> > On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 3:15 PM, Elliott Clark <[email protected] > > > > >> wrote: > > >> >> > > > >> >> >> Lately there have been a lot of issues being committed to trunk > > and > > >> >> >> also back-ported to 0.94 (I've done it myself too). Since we're > > so > > >> far > > >> >> >> into 0.94's release cycle should we think about not allowing > minor > > >> >> >> features > > >> >> >> and code clean ups to be back-ported ? > > >> >> > > > >> >> > > > >> >> > > >> >> -- > > >> >> Best regards, > > >> >> > > >> >> - Andy > > >> >> > > >> >> Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet > > Hein > > >> >> (via Tom White) > > >> >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> -- > > >> // Jonathan Hsieh (shay) > > >> // Software Engineer, Cloudera > > >> // [email protected] > > >> > > > > > > > > -- > > // Jonathan Hsieh (shay) > > // Software Engineer, Cloudera > > // [email protected] > > >
