I saw that too.

Agree it is not a blocker.

Unit test suite is running.

Cheers

On Mon, Sep 15, 2014 at 6:33 PM, Enis Söztutar <[email protected]> wrote:

> Andrew,
>
> Extending the tarballs gives a lot of:
>
> tar: Ignoring unknown extended header keyword 'SCHILY.nlink'
>
> ....
>
> Not a blocker, but seems strange. Is it only me?
>
> On Mon, Sep 15, 2014 at 8:31 AM, Andrew Purtell <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> > HBASE-11972 came in after 0.98.6 was released, involving a fix
> > committed to 0.98.6, where the fix is incomplete and table creation
> > functionality is affected if security is active. I think it's
> > necessary to push out a patch release containing the fix for
> > HBASE-11972 as 0.98.6.1 and then remove the 0.98.6 artifacts. I have
> > also included on more fix, for HBASE-11963, which is a rare but
> > serious thread leak in replication we encountered in production at
> > Salesforce last week. Both of these changes are narrowly scoped and
> > should be straightforward to assess.
> >
> > The 1st HBase 0.98.6.1 patch release candidate (RC0) is available for
> > download at http://people.apache.org//~apurtell/0.98.6.1RC0/ and Maven
> > artifacts are also available in the temporary repository
> > https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachehbase-1038/
> >
> > Signed with my code signing key D5365CCD.
> >
> > The issues resolved in this release are:
> >
> >     HBASE-11963 Synchronize peer cluster replication connection attempts
> >         https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-11963
> >
> >     HBASE-11972 The "doAs user" used in the update to hbase:acl table
> > RPC is incorrect
> >         https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-11972
> >
> > I would like to run a short vote for ~24 hours for this patch release,
> > therefore requesting three PMC vote +1/-1 by midnight Pacific Time
> > (00:00 -0800 GMT) on Tuesday September 16.
> >
> > --
> > Best regards,
> >
> >    - Andy
> >
> > Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet
> > Hein (via Tom White)
> >
>

Reply via email to