I just ran a small ITBLL against current 1.2 HEAD and it seems fine... nothing untoward in logs. Running bigger one now. Lets just go w/ tip of 1.2? And one of the items just got reverted:
commit e52ac92b9810425cb5345121260959e4c0ad5ab3 Author: tedyu <[email protected]> Date: Fri Feb 12 12:01:45 2016 -0800 HBASE-15219 Revert pending verification of test result St.Ack On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 11:44 AM, Sean Busbey <[email protected]> wrote: > here is what has happened on branch-1.2 since RC2: > > * 7ed1603 - (origin/branch-1.2) HBASE-15252 Data loss when replaying wal if > HDFS timeout (11 hours ago) > * 19d964d - HBASE-15198 RPC client not using Codec and CellBlock for puts > by default-addendum. (18 hours ago) > * cc863f3 - HBASE-15224 Undo "hbase.increment.fast.but.narrow.consistency" > option; it is not necessary since HBASE-15213 (23 hours ago) > * 644326b - HBASE-15129 Set default value for hbase.fs.tmp.dir rather than > fully depend on hbase-default.xml (Yu Li) (27 hours ago) > * 7d5a158 - HBASE-15198 RPC client not using Codec and CellBlock for puts > by default. (33 hours ago) > * c5b6c96 - HBASE-14192 Fix REST Cluster Constructor with String List (2 > days ago) > * 3b6c305 - HBASE-15229 Canary Tools should not call System.Exit on error > (Vishal Khandelwal) (2 days ago) > * 8a2cb16 - HBASE-15219 Canary tool does not return non-zero exit code when > one of regions is in stuck state (2 days ago) > * 7643509 - HBASE-15216 Canary does not accept config params from command > line (Vishal Khandelwal) (3 days ago) > * d5fd993 - HBASE-15238 HFileReaderV2 prefetch overreaches; runs off the > end of the data; ADDENDUM (3 days ago) > * 6f6cd66 - HBASE-15238 HFileReaderV2 prefetch overreaches; runs off > the end of the data (3 days ago) > * 4cb21cf - HBASE-15224 Undo "hbase.increment.fast.but.narrow.consistency" > option; it is not necessary since HBASE-15213 (4 days ago) > * d568db8 - (1.2.0RC2) HBASE-14025 update CHANGES.txt for 1.2 RC2 (5 days > ago) > > 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. > > 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 >
