okay, I'll roll RC3 tomorrow. What are folks thinking on voting period? 72hrs (~tuesday)? Maybe Wednesday for a little extra?
On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 7:07 PM, Stack <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 > >> > > > > > -- Sean
