I don't think so. Please take a look at the new test - TestSCVFWithMiniCluster It exposes the defect Fabien reported. Without the fix, two of the sub-tests in TestSCVFWithMiniCluster would fail.
Cheers On Thu, Apr 3, 2014 at 9:20 AM, James Taylor <[email protected]> wrote: > It's just the optimization that's (sometimes) broken, right? The scan > still returns the correct results, no? > > > On Apr 3, 2014, at 9:13 AM, Ted Yu <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > James: > > HBASE-10850 is not just about SingleColumnValueFilter. See Anoop's > comment: > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-10850?focusedCommentId=13958668&page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel#comment-13958668 > > > > The test case Fabien provided uses SingleColumnValueFilter but the defect > > has deeper implication beyond making SingleColumnValueFilter unusable in > > certain scenarios. > > > > I am find with giving the next RC a bit shorter voting period. > > > > Cheers > > > > > >> On Thu, Apr 3, 2014 at 8:57 AM, James Taylor <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> > >> I implore you to stick with releasing RC3. Phoenix 4.0 has no release it > >> can currently run on. Phoenix doesn't use SingleColumnValueFilter, so it > >> seems that HBASE-10850 has no impact wrt Phoenix. Can't we get these > >> additional bugs in 0.98.2 - it's one month away [1]? > >> > >> James > >> > >> [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mythical_Man-Month > >> > >> > >> On Thu, Apr 3, 2014 at 3:34 AM, ramkrishna vasudevan < > >> [email protected]> wrote: > >> > >>> Will target HBASE-10899 also then by that time. > >>> > >>> Regards > >>> Ram > >>> > >>> > >>>> On Thu, Apr 3, 2014 at 3:47 PM, Ted Yu <[email protected]> wrote: > >>>> > >>>> Understood, Andy. > >>>> > >>>> I have integrated fix for HBASE-10850 to 0.98 > >>>> > >>>> Cheers > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> On Thu, Apr 3, 2014 at 3:00 AM, Andrew Purtell < > >> [email protected] > >>>>> wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> I will sink this RC and roll a new one tomorrow. > >>>>> > >>>>> However, I may very well release the next RC even if I am the only +1 > >>>> vote > >>>>> and testing it causes your workstation to catch fire. So please take > >>> the > >>>>> time to commit whatever you feel is needed to the 0.98 branch or file > >>>>> blockers against 0.98.1 in the next 24 hours. This is it for 0.98.1. > >>>>> 0.98.2 will happen a mere 30 days from the 0.98.1 release. > >>>>> > >>>>>> On Apr 3, 2014, at 11:21 AM, Ted Yu <[email protected]> wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> I agree with Anoop's assessment. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Cheers > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> On Apr 3, 2014, at 2:19 AM, Anoop John <[email protected]> > >>> wrote: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> After analysing HBASE-10850 I think better we can fix this in > >> 98.1 > >>>>> release > >>>>>>> itself. Also Phoenix plan to use this 98.1 and Phoenix uses > >>> essential > >>>>> CF > >>>>>>> optimization. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Also HBASE-10854 can be included in 98.1 in such a case, > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Considering those we need a new RC. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> -Anoop- > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> On Tue, Apr 1, 2014 at 10:19 AM, ramkrishna vasudevan < > >>>>>>> [email protected]> wrote: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> +1 on the RC. > >>>>>>>> Checked the signature. > >>>>>>>> Downloaded the source, built and ran the testcases. > >>>>>>>> Ran Integration Tests with ACL and Visibility labels. Everything > >>>> looks > >>>>>>>> fine. > >>>>>>>> Compaction, flushes etc too. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Regards > >>>>>>>> Ram > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> On Tue, Apr 1, 2014 at 2:14 AM, Elliott Clark < > >> [email protected]> > >>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> +1 > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Checked the hash > >>>>>>>>> Checked the tar layout. > >>>>>>>>> Played with a single node. Everything seemed good after ITBLL > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Mar 31, 2014 at 9:23 AM, Stack <[email protected]> > >> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> +1 > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> The hash is good. Doc. and layout looks good. UI seems fine. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Ran on small cluster w/ default hadoop 2.2 in hbase against a > >> tip > >>>> of > >>>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>>>> branch hadoop 2.4 cluster. Seems to basically work (small big > >>>> linked > >>>>>>>>> list > >>>>>>>>>> test worked). > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> TSDB seems to work fine against this RC. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> I don't mean to be stealing our Jon's thunder but in case he is > >>> too > >>>>>>>>>> occupied to vote here, I'll note that he has gotten our > >> internal > >>>> rig > >>>>>>>>>> running against the tip of the 0.98 branch and it has been > >>> passing > >>>>>>>> green > >>>>>>>>>> running IT tests on a small cluster over hours. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> St.Ack > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> On Sun, Mar 30, 2014 at 12:49 AM, Andrew Purtell < > >>>>> [email protected] > >>>>>>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> The 4th HBase 0.98.1 release candidate (RC3) is available for > >>>>>>>> download > >>>>>>>>> at > >>>>>>>>>>> http://people.apache.org/~apurtell/0.98.1RC3/ and Maven > >>> artifacts > >>>>>>>> are > >>>>>>>>>> also > >>>>>>>>>>> available in the temporary repository > >>>> > https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachehbase-1016 > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> 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 > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> Please try out the candidate and vote +1/-1 by midnight > >> Pacific > >>>> Time > >>>>>>>>>> (00:00 > >>>>>>>>>>> PDT) on April 6 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) > >> >
