-1, but maybe it's fine. I would like to discuss a complaint from the compatibility report. I believe it is against our promises and I don't see it discussed on the relevant jiras nor noted above.
ByteBufferUtils is IA.Public and had a public method removed in HBASE-20716 (the jira is not marked as an incompatible change). It looks like we could just add the method back, since it's a variant of more general purpose method that was added. things that came up fine: * checked checksums and signatures * checked ~5 worker cluster using bin artifact with YCSB workloadA (8u181) for correctness, not perf. * checked source artifact against 1.5.0RC2 tag * spot checked LICENSE On Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 5:44 PM Andrew Purtell <[email protected]> wrote: > > The third HBase 1.5.0 release candidate (RC2) is available for download at > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/hbase/hbase-1.5.0RC2/ and Maven > artifacts are available in the temporary repository > https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachehbase-1258/ > > The git tag corresponding to the candidate is '1.5.0RC2' (b5c50b506c). > > A detailed source and binary compatibility report for this release is > available for your review at > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/hbase/hbase-1.5.0RC2/compat-check-report.html > . > > A list of the 94 issues resolved in this release can be found at > https://s.apache.org/K4Wk . The 1.5.0 changelog is derived from the > changelog of the last branch-1.4 release, 1.4.9. > > Please try out the candidate and vote +1/0/-1. > > The vote will be open for at least 72 hours. Unless objection I will try to > close it Thursday February 28, 2019 if we have sufficient votes. > > Prior to making this announcement I made the following preflight checks: > > RAT check passes (7u80) > Unit test suite passes (7u80, 8u181)* > Opened the UI in a browser, poked around > LTT load 100M rows with 100% verification and 20% updates (8u181) > ITBLL 1B rows with slowDeterministic monkey (8u181) > ITBLL 1B rows with serverKilling monkey (8u181) > > Some of this testing was done with recent 1.5.0-SNAPSHOT versions. During > the month of February I plan to perform a number of additional tests, > including performance regression checks. As more results become available I > will post them to this thread. > > There are known flaky tests. See HBASE-21904 and HBASE-21905. These flaky > tests do not represent serious test failures that would prevent a release > in my opinion. > > > -- > Best regards, > Andrew
