A longer ITBLL run passes so 1.2 HEAD is basically sound I'd say... St.Ack On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 1:22 PM, Stack <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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 >> > >
