Ted, is that a -1?
> On Mar 29, 2014, at 2:13 PM, Ted Yu <[email protected]> wrote: > > HBASE-10863 is a fix that should be included in 0.98.1 > > W.r.t. Conclusion of voting period of RC3, it is reasonable to have some > flexibility. > > Cheers > >> On Mar 29, 2014, at 4:14 AM, Andrew Purtell <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> If we need another RC, then I can do this in the evening Amsterdam time >> today or tomorrow and run a new vote. I guess at this point it should >> conclude on April 6? >> >> I wanted to hit a release date of March 31 because Phoenix's 4.0.0 RC >> depends on having a 0.98.1 available. Of course if there is a veto worthy >> issue then downstream will be better served by waiting. >> >> Also, I will be spinning a 0.98.2 to hit a release date target +30 days from >> .1. >> >> >>> On Mar 29, 2014, at 12:00 PM, Ted Yu <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> After some more testing in secure deployment of 0.98, I found some issue >>> with cell visibility labels. >>> Namely: >>> HBASE-10863 Scan doesn't return rows for user who has authorization by >>> visibility label in secure deployment >>> HBASE-10857 clear_auths command gives exception on existing label and user >>> in secure deployment >>> >>> Underneath, they are actually caused by one defect: >>> DefaultScanLabelGenerator#dropLabelsNotInUserAuths() would erroneously drop >>> labels due to mismatching username. >>> >>> The fix, attached to HBASE-10863, switches to calling user.getShortName() >>> which is consistent with AccessController in working with Kerberos >>> principals. >>> >>> From users' point of view, it would be expected that cell visibility labels >>> work in secure deployment. >>> >>> I want to solicit opinion on whether RC3 is needed. >>> If RC3 comes out, I would expect a quick vote. >>> >>> Cheers >>> >>> >>>> On Thu, Mar 27, 2014 at 4:05 PM, Ted Yu <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>> +1 >>>> >>>> - checked documentation and tarball >>>> >>>> - Ran unit test suite which passed >>>> >>>> - Ran in local and distributed mode >>>> - checked the UI pages >>>> >>>> >>>> On Thu, Mar 27, 2014 at 9:27 AM, Andrew Purtell <[email protected]>wrote: >>>> >>>>> +1 >>>>> >>>>> Unit test suite passes 100% 25 times out of 25 runs. >>>>> >>>>> Cluster testing looks good with LoadTestTool, YCSB, ITI, and ITIBLL. >>>>> >>>>> An informal performance test on a small cluster comparing 0.98.0 and >>>>> 0.98.1 >>>>> indicates no serious perf regressions. See email to dev@ titled >>>>> "Comparsion >>>>> between 0.98.0 and 0.98.1RC1 using YCSB". The results are still relevant >>>>> to >>>>> this RC. >>>>> >>>>> Some of the integration tests have issues when run in local mode but this >>>>> test only problem can be fixed later. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 12:25 PM, Andrew Purtell <[email protected] >>>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> The 3rd HBase 0.98.1 release candidate (RC2) is available for download >>>>> at >>>>>> http://people.apache.org/~apurtell/0.98.1RC2/ and Maven artifacts are >>>>>> also available in the temporary repository >>>>>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachehbase-1014 >>>>>> >>>>>> Signed with my code signing key D5365CCD. >>>>>> >>>>>> The issues resolved in this release can be found here: >>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=12310753&version=12325664 >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> This is the last RC expected for this version unless we find a new >>>>>> blocker. >>>>>> >>>>>> Please try out the candidate and vote +1/-1 by midnight Pacific Time >>>>>> (00:00 -0800 GMT) on March 31 on whether or not we should release this >>>>> as >>>>>> 0.98.1. >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> Best regards, >>>>>> >>>>>> - Andy >>>>>> >>>>>> Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet Hein >>>>>> (via Tom White) >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Best regards, >>>>> >>>>> - Andy >>>>> >>>>> Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet Hein >>>>> (via Tom White) >>>> >>>>
