If we do a 0.94.6.1 we should call it that (IMHO), replacing releases with the same name is confusing, also we only have to validate that one patch and not go through the whole process.
+1 on 0.94.6.1 and we agree to do that with just running the test suite and double checking that one patch (which we can all do today) -1 otherwise. +1 on 0.94.7RC today if can't agree on the quick path mentioned above :) -- Lars ________________________________ From: Jean-Daniel Cryans <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Thursday, April 4, 2013 10:21 AM Subject: 0.94.6.1 discussion (WAS [jira] [Commented] (HBASE-8259) Snapshot backport in 0.94.6 breaks rolling restarts) We might wanna bring this discussion here on dev@. So right now the questions are: - Should we call a release with just HBASE-8259 as 0.94.6.1 or 0.94.7? How much testing are we expecting from folks? - Should we just cut a release with what's in the branch and call it 0.94.7? My opinion is to release 0.94.6.1 with just HBASE-8259 to replace the current 0.94.6. Have the normal unit test run and release based on the +1s we gather. J-D On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 10:01 AM, Ted Yu (JIRA) <[email protected]> wrote: > > [ >https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-8259?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13622514#comment-13622514 > ] > > Ted Yu commented on HBASE-8259: > ------------------------------- > > What level of verification effort are you expecting ? > If normal procedure of validating a release is involved, 0.94.7 release seems > to be a better fit. > >> Snapshot backport in 0.94.6 breaks rolling restarts >> --------------------------------------------------- >> >> Key: HBASE-8259 >> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-8259 >> Project: HBase >> Issue Type: Bug >> Affects Versions: 0.94.6 >> Reporter: Jean-Daniel Cryans >> Assignee: Matteo Bertozzi >> Priority: Blocker >> Fix For: 0.94.7 >> >> Attachments: HBASE-8259-v0.patch >> >> >> [~aleksshulman] found with his nifty QA tools that 0.94.6 has an >> incompatible change due to HBASE-7360 (Snapshot 0.94 Backport) that breaks >> rolling restarts. >> RegionTransitionData.write() uses eventType.ordinal() that is the index in >> the enum and not the value specified in the enum definition. It means we >> can't add new states in the middle of the list. This can be fixed by moving >> C_M_SNAPSHOT_TABLE and C_M_RESTORE_SNAPSHOT at the end of the list. Trunk >> does the right thing already. >> Right now, RIT znodes created with 0.94.6 (or top of the branch) will use >> the wrong value for the event type. You will see things like: >> {noformat} >> 2013-04-03 14:57:25,197 DEBUG org.apache.hadoop.hbase.zookeeper.ZKAssign: >> regionserver:60020-0x13dd1e10dbd0004 Attempting to transition node >> 70236052/-ROOT- from M_ZK_REGION_OFFLINE to RS_ZK_REGION_OPENING >> 2013-04-03 14:57:25,201 WARN org.apache.hadoop.hbase.zookeeper.ZKAssign: >> regionserver:60020-0x13dd1e10dbd0004 Attempt to transition the unassigned >> node for 70236052 from M_ZK_REGION_OFFLINE to RS_ZK_REGION_OPENING failed, >> the node existed but was in the state M_SERVER_SHUTDOWN set by the server >> 192.168.1.112,60020,1365026237977 >> 2013-04-03 14:57:25,201 WARN >> org.apache.hadoop.hbase.regionserver.handler.OpenRegionHandler: Failed >> transition from OFFLINE to OPENING for region=70236052 >> 2013-04-03 14:57:25,201 WARN >> org.apache.hadoop.hbase.regionserver.handler.OpenRegionHandler: Region was >> hijacked? It no longer exists, encodedName=70236052 >> {noformat} >> We should roll a 0.94.6.1 or 0.94.7 as soon this is fixed IMO. > > -- > This message is automatically generated by JIRA. > If you think it was sent incorrectly, please contact your JIRA administrators > For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira
