Andrew, Can we include HBASE-19393 as well? Quite annoying issue and very simple fix.
Thanks, Sergey On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 3:47 PM, Andrew Purtell <apurt...@apache.org> wrote: > Not too late, no > > On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 3:31 PM, Stack <st...@duboce.net> wrote: > > > Fix is up if it is not too late Andrew. > > St.Ack > > > > On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 1:58 PM, Stack <st...@duboce.net> wrote: > > > > > Andrew, your testing has turned up an issue in HBASE-18233. It is > present > > > in the 1.4 candidate patch and in 1.3. The failure is intermittent. I > am > > > working on a fix but want to make sure I have it right. So, I withdraw > my > > > request that 1.4 include it. > > > > > > Thanks, > > > S > > > > > > On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 5:14 PM, Andrew Purtell <apurt...@apache.org> > > > wrote: > > > > > >> TestGlobalThrottler is a problem stemming from the revert of > HBASE-9465 > > >> on branch-1.4. The test came in on HBASE-17314 so I'll also revert > > that > > >> from branch-1.4. For more on this see HBASE-19381 > > >> > > >> > > >> On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 5:00 PM, Andrew Purtell <apurt...@apache.org> > > >> wrote: > > >> > > >> > The TestEndToEndSplitTransaction failure will be fixed by > HBASE-19379. > > >> > > > >> > The TestGlobalThrottler issue is a hang, which is probably why it > > >> slipped > > >> > through the cracks. I went back 32 commits from head and it was > still > > >> > stuck. 64 commits back it's good. Somewhere in between. Will get to > > the > > >> > offending commit shortly. > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 3:56 PM, Andrew Purtell < > apurt...@apache.org> > > >> > wrote: > > >> > > > >> >> Thanks. I'll take a look. They were passing for me before I went > out > > on > > >> >> vacation. > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 3:52 PM, Stack <st...@duboce.net> wrote: > > >> >> > > >> >>> Thanks. > > >> >>> > > >> >>> BTW, I noticed this morning that TestGlobalThrottler and > > >> >>> TestEndToEndSplitTransaction > > >> >>> fail locally for me and up on jenkins as part of hadoopqa runs and > > on > > >> >>> recent 1.4 runs. > > >> >>> > > >> >>> I tried to poke at why. They seem fine in 1.2, 1.3, and 2.0. Got > > >> >>> distracted > > >> >>> and got no further than this.... > > >> >>> > > >> >>> S > > >> >>> > > >> >>> On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 3:00 PM, Andrew Purtell < > > apurt...@apache.org> > > >> >>> wrote: > > >> >>> > > >> >>> > Ok, no problem. > > >> >>> > > > >> >>> > On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 2:59 PM, Stack <st...@duboce.net> > wrote: > > >> >>> > > > >> >>> > > May I get HBASE-18233 into 1.4.0 Andrew? It is in 1.2 and 1.3. > > >> >>> Waiting on > > >> >>> > > hadoopqa run. Would be good to have it all up and down > branch-1. > > >> >>> > > Thanks Sir, > > >> >>> > > St.Ack > > >> >>> > > > > >> >>> > > On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 12:38 PM, Peter Somogyi < > > >> >>> psomo...@cloudera.com> > > >> >>> > > wrote: > > >> >>> > > > > >> >>> > > > HBASE-19188 was just resolved. :) > > >> >>> > > > > > >> >>> > > > On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 8:12 PM, Andrew Purtell < > > >> >>> apurt...@apache.org> > > >> >>> > > > wrote: > > >> >>> > > > > > >> >>> > > > > I come back to find HBASE-19188 is a blocker. :-/ > > >> >>> > > > > Need to resolve it > > >> >>> > > > > > > >> >>> > > > > On Sat, Nov 18, 2017 at 10:30 AM, Sean Busbey < > > >> bus...@apache.org > > >> >>> > > > >> >>> > > wrote: > > >> >>> > > > > > > >> >>> > > > > > thanks for all the work as RM on this Andrew! > > >> >>> > > > > > > > >> >>> > > > > > On Sat, Nov 18, 2017 at 12:19 PM, Andrew Purtell > > >> >>> > > > > > <andrew.purt...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >> >>> > > > > > > Everything is in and ready to go. I'm out next week > for > > >> the > > >> >>> > > > > Thanksgiving > > >> >>> > > > > > > holiday, but will be back first week in December. > > >> >>> > > > > > > > > >> >>> > > > > > > Here is what I anticipate: > > >> >>> > > > > > > > > >> >>> > > > > > > - December 4 > > >> >>> > > > > > > - 1.4.0 RC0 binaries will be available. > > >> >>> > > > > > > - Voting begins. > > >> >>> > > > > > > - Preflight checks will include RAT check, > release > > >> >>> audits, > > >> >>> > > and > > >> >>> > > > 25 > > >> >>> > > > > > > iterations of the unit test suite. > > >> >>> > > > > > > - December 5 - 8 > > >> >>> > > > > > > - 24 hours ITBLL > > >> >>> > > > > > > - PE and YCSB on cluster perf comparison with > 1.2 > > >> >>> > > > > > > - PE and YCSB single server profiling with JFR, > > >> >>> comparison > > >> >>> > > with > > >> >>> > > > > 1.2 > > >> >>> > > > > > > - December 11 > > >> >>> > > > > > > - Voting concludes > > >> >>> > > > > > > - Release, or RC1 depending on testing outcome > > >> >>> > > > > > > - December 18 > > >> >>> > > > > > > - RC1 voting concludes and release, if we need a > > RC1 > > >> >>> > > > > > > > > >> >>> > > > > > > > > >> >>> > > > > > > From now until the 1.4.0 release, please refrain from > > >> >>> committing > > >> >>> > > > > > > potentially destabilizing changes or changes to public > > >> APIs > > >> >>> to > > >> >>> > > > > > branch-1.4. > > >> >>> > > > > > > > > >> >>> > > > > > > On Mon, Nov 13, 2017 at 10:33 AM, Andrew Purtell < > > >> >>> > > > > > andrew.purt...@gmail.com> > > >> >>> > > > > > > wrote: > > >> >>> > > > > > > > > >> >>> > > > > > >> On HBASE-19232 we discuss testing the shaded client > > using > > >> >>> YCSB, > > >> >>> > so > > >> >>> > > > > I'll > > >> >>> > > > > > >> use it to sanity check the shaded client as well as > > >> >>> complete a > > >> >>> > > perf > > >> >>> > > > > > >> comparison with 1.2. > > >> >>> > > > > > >> > > >> >>> > > > > > >> > > >> >>> > > > > > >> > > >> >>> > > > > > >> On Sat, Nov 11, 2017 at 9:53 AM, Andrew Purtell < > > >> >>> > > > > > andrew.purt...@gmail.com> > > >> >>> > > > > > >> wrote: > > >> >>> > > > > > >> > > >> >>> > > > > > >>> I'll do a PE comparison between 1.4.0 and 1.3 and/or > > >> 1.2. > > >> >>> Maybe > > >> >>> > > > YSCB > > >> >>> > > > > > too > > >> >>> > > > > > >>> if I have time. Good idea, thanks. > > >> >>> > > > > > >>> > > >> >>> > > > > > >>> > > >> >>> > > > > > >>> > On Nov 11, 2017, at 5:05 AM, Yu Li < > > car...@gmail.com> > > >> >>> wrote: > > >> >>> > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>> > > > > > >>> > Great to know, really good progress! > > >> >>> > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>> > > > > > >>> > It seems we don't do performance comparison with > > >> current > > >> >>> > stable > > >> >>> > > > > > release > > >> >>> > > > > > >>> > when releasing the first RC of a new branch, but > > >> should > > >> >>> we do > > >> >>> > > to > > >> >>> > > > > > avoid > > >> >>> > > > > > >>> > issues like HBASE-14460 (write performance > > regression > > >> >>> from > > >> >>> > 0.98 > > >> >>> > > > to > > >> >>> > > > > > 1.1)? > > >> >>> > > > > > >>> > This is a must-have for us to decide new version > for > > >> >>> product > > >> >>> > > env > > >> >>> > > > > > here, > > >> >>> > > > > > >>> and > > >> >>> > > > > > >>> > I wonder whether this applies for most users > (please > > >> >>> forgive > > >> >>> > my > > >> >>> > > > > > >>> ignorance > > >> >>> > > > > > >>> > if there's any existing policy for this). Thanks. > > >> >>> > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>> > > > > > >>> > bq. Back when we first discussed branching for 1.4 > > Yu > > >> Li > > >> >>> > asked > > >> >>> > > > for > > >> >>> > > > > > >>> this... > > >> >>> > > > > > >>> > Thanks for remembering this and keeping the > promise > > >> boss > > >> >>> > > (smile). > > >> >>> > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>> > > > > > >>> > Best Regards, > > >> >>> > > > > > >>> > Yu > > >> >>> > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>> > > > > > >>> >> On 11 November 2017 at 03:30, Andrew Purtell < > > >> >>> > > > apurt...@apache.org > > >> >>> > > > > > > > >> >>> > > > > > >>> wrote: > > >> >>> > > > > > >>> >> > > >> >>> > > > > > >>> >> The march to 1.4.0 is progressing. > > >> >>> > > > > > >>> >> > > >> >>> > > > > > >>> >> I've run the unit test suite on a C4 class AWS > > >> instance > > >> >>> 25 > > >> >>> > > times > > >> >>> > > > > and > > >> >>> > > > > > >>> there > > >> >>> > > > > > >>> >> are no failures. This is ongoing. I'm aiming for > > 100 > > >> >>> runs. > > >> >>> > > > > > >>> >> > > >> >>> > > > > > >>> >> Fix versions are now set up for constructing a > > >> >>> reasonable > > >> >>> > > change > > >> >>> > > > > > log. > > >> >>> > > > > > >>> >> > > >> >>> > > > > > >>> >> With HBASE-19232 applied a build with release > > audits > > >> >>> enabled > > >> >>> > > > will > > >> >>> > > > > > pass. > > >> >>> > > > > > >>> >> > > >> >>> > > > > > >>> >> I backported error-prone support yesterday and > will > > >> now > > >> >>> look > > >> >>> > > at > > >> >>> > > > > > >>> checkstyle > > >> >>> > > > > > >>> >> and error-prone analyses for important issues. > > >> >>> > > > > > >>> >> > > >> >>> > > > > > >>> >> I'll probably do HBASE-19238 before 1.4.0 goes > out > > so > > >> >>> that > > >> >>> > > neat > > >> >>> > > > > > utility > > >> >>> > > > > > >>> >> will be available. > > >> >>> > > > > > >>> >> > > >> >>> > > > > > >>> >> Back when we first discussed branching for 1.4 Yu > > Li > > >> >>> asked > > >> >>> > for > > >> >>> > > > > this: > > >> >>> > > > > > >>> >> > > >> >>> > > > > > >>> >>> One naive question here: from the book > > >> >>> > > > > > >>> >>> <http://hbase.apache.org/book. > > html#hbase.versioning > > >> > > > >> >>> we > > >> >>> > will > > >> >>> > > > add > > >> >>> > > > > > >>> >>> functionality (in a backwards-compatible manner) > > in > > >> >>> minor > > >> >>> > > > > versions, > > >> >>> > > > > > >>> but > > >> >>> > > > > > >>> >> it > > >> >>> > > > > > >>> >>> seems we don't have any one-line description on > > the > > >> >>> > > differences > > >> >>> > > > > > (what > > >> >>> > > > > > >>> >>> main functionalities have been added) between > > >> >>> > > > > > branch-1.1/1.2/1.3/1.4 > > >> >>> > > > > > >>> so > > >> >>> > > > > > >>> >>> user could better decide which version to > > >> >>> choose/upgrade. > > >> >>> > > > Should > > >> >>> > > > > we > > >> >>> > > > > > >>> >>> add some explicit document on this? Or release > > note > > >> of > > >> >>> the > > >> >>> > > > first > > >> >>> > > > > > >>> release > > >> >>> > > > > > >>> >>> for each branch is enough? Thanks. > > >> >>> > > > > > >>> >> > > >> >>> > > > > > >>> >> and I still agree to do it. I'll write it up > while > > >> the > > >> >>> RC is > > >> >>> > > > under > > >> >>> > > > > > >>> >> evaluation. > > >> >>> > > > > > >>> >> > > >> >>> > > > > > >>> >> ITBLL and replication testing to be performed on > a > > >> small > > >> >>> > > cluster > > >> >>> > > > > > once > > >> >>> > > > > > >>> we > > >> >>> > > > > > >>> >> have the RC binaries. > > >> >>> > > > > > >>> >> > > >> >>> > > > > > >>> >> Anything else? (Within reason...) > > >> >>> > > > > > >>> >> > > >> >>> > > > > > >>> >> -- > > >> >>> > > > > > >>> >> Best regards, > > >> >>> > > > > > >>> >> Andrew > > >> >>> > > > > > >>> >> > > >> >>> > > > > > >>> >> Words like orphans lost among the crosstalk, > > meaning > > >> >>> torn > > >> >>> > from > > >> >>> > > > > > truth's > > >> >>> > > > > > >>> >> decrepit hands > > >> >>> > > > > > >>> >> - A23, Crosstalk > > >> >>> > > > > > >>> >> > > >> >>> > > > > > >>> > > >> >>> > > > > > >> > > >> >>> > > > > > >> > > >> >>> > > > > > >> > > >> >>> > > > > > >> -- > > >> >>> > > > > > >> Best regards, > > >> >>> > > > > > >> Andrew > > >> >>> > > > > > >> > > >> >>> > > > > > >> Words like orphans lost among the crosstalk, meaning > > torn > > >> >>> from > > >> >>> > > > truth's > > >> >>> > > > > > >> decrepit hands > > >> >>> > > > > > >> - A23, Crosstalk > > >> >>> > > > > > >> > > >> >>> > > > > > > > > >> >>> > > > > > > > > >> >>> > > > > > > > > >> >>> > > > > > > -- > > >> >>> > > > > > > Best regards, > > >> >>> > > > > > > Andrew > > >> >>> > > > > > > > > >> >>> > > > > > > Words like orphans lost among the crosstalk, meaning > > torn > > >> >>> from > > >> >>> > > > truth's > > >> >>> > > > > > > decrepit hands > > >> >>> > > > > > > - A23, Crosstalk > > >> >>> > > > > > > > >> >>> > > > > > > >> >>> > > > > > > >> >>> > > > > > > >> >>> > > > > -- > > >> >>> > > > > Best regards, > > >> >>> > > > > Andrew > > >> >>> > > > > > > >> >>> > > > > Words like orphans lost among the crosstalk, meaning torn > > from > > >> >>> > truth's > > >> >>> > > > > decrepit hands > > >> >>> > > > > - A23, Crosstalk > > >> >>> > > > > > > >> >>> > > > > > >> >>> > > > > >> >>> > > > >> >>> > > > >> >>> > > > >> >>> > -- > > >> >>> > Best regards, > > >> >>> > Andrew > > >> >>> > > > >> >>> > Words like orphans lost among the crosstalk, meaning torn from > > >> truth's > > >> >>> > decrepit hands > > >> >>> > - A23, Crosstalk > > >> >>> > > > >> >>> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> -- > > >> >> Best regards, > > >> >> Andrew > > >> >> > > >> >> Words like orphans lost among the crosstalk, meaning torn from > > truth's > > >> >> decrepit hands > > >> >> - A23, Crosstalk > > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > -- > > >> > Best regards, > > >> > Andrew > > >> > > > >> > Words like orphans lost among the crosstalk, meaning torn from > truth's > > >> > decrepit hands > > >> > - A23, Crosstalk > > >> > > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> -- > > >> Best regards, > > >> Andrew > > >> > > >> Words like orphans lost among the crosstalk, meaning torn from truth's > > >> decrepit hands > > >> - A23, Crosstalk > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > Best regards, > Andrew > > Words like orphans lost among the crosstalk, meaning torn from truth's > decrepit hands > - A23, Crosstalk >
