+1 on both 0.94.6.1 with short tests (since only 1 patch is added),
but I don't have anything against starting 0.94.7RC too.

2013/4/4 lars hofhansl <[email protected]>:
> 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

Reply via email to