Also in the 0.98 history.
> On Feb 12, 2016, at 12:04 PM, Nick Dimiduk <[email protected]> wrote: > >> 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 >>
