On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 11:44 AM, Sean Busbey <[email protected]> wrote:
> I *could* make 1.2.0 RC3 that just cherry picks HBASE-15252 onto RC2, but > that's going to make things a bit messy and possibly confusing for folks > who look for the 1.2.0 tag to be an ancestor of branch-1.2's HEAD. > We have no strict requirement that a previous release is a git ancestor of a later release. So long as the committed set of JIRAs matches, it's fine. There's a precedent of this already with earlier 1.x release candidates. On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 1:16 PM, Andrew Purtell <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > Same here. I have started with RC2 but can mostly carry findings to RC3 > > given only one additional change. > > > > > On Feb 12, 2016, at 8:56 AM, Elliott Clark <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > -1 until the dataloss is fixed. > > > > > > But assuming that's fixed I would be good for a short vote cycle for > the > > > next RC. > > > > > >> On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 1:02 AM, 张铎 <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> > > >> HBASE-15252 is fixed :). > > >> > > >> 2016-02-12 14:00 GMT+08:00 Stack <[email protected]>: > > >> > > >>> -1 > > >>> > > >>> The dataloss issue was just discovered. I think now we know of it, > even > > >>> though the incidence is rare, would be best to respin the RC. > > >>> > > >>> You the man Sean, > > >>> St.Ack > > >>> > > >>> > > >>>> On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 8:59 PM, Stack <[email protected]> wrote: > > >>>> > > >>>> On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 5:04 PM, Sean Busbey <[email protected] > > > > >>>> wrote: > > >>>> > > >>>>>> On Feb 11, 2016 18:33, "张铎" <[email protected]> wrote: > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> Should we include HBASE-15252? It is a data loss issue. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> It's marked major (though perhaps that's off since it's dataloss, > > even > > >>> if > > >>>>> rare). More importantly it's been present in prior releases for > some > > >>> time. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> Blocking 1.2.0 would put pressure on getting a solution faster, I > > >> think. > > >>>>> Additionally, letting the fix wait for 1.2.1 will give me a good > > >>> incentive > > >>>>> to keep the path releases on schedule. ;) > > >>>>> > > >>>>> My 2¢. Happy to roll another RC if folks see it otherwise. > > >>>> > > >>>> Dataloss. I think we should roll a new RC with short voting > timeframe. > > >>>> St.Ack > > >> > > > > > > -- > Sean >
