The only rush for me is the uncertainty of time to fix this later vs time to fix it now. :)
a couple weeks will give me a chance to get the functional testing stuff I wanted to use working. since not much is expected to change perf wise between the code now and the next RC maybe I can find time to do a better job of throwing YCSB against it too. On Tue, Mar 12, 2019 at 1:27 PM Andrew Purtell <[email protected]> wrote: > > Thanks. > Probably the earliest I'll have available for running the next RC is week > after next. Plenty of time to get this sorted out. Also, there is still > that testing I've promised that has been hard to find time for recently. > > On Tue, Mar 12, 2019 at 11:08 AM Sean Busbey <[email protected]> wrote: > > > file HBASE-22044. I'll start putting up patches shortly. > > > > On Tue, Mar 12, 2019 at 11:52 AM Andrew Purtell > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > Could you file a JIRA for this? > > > > > > I don’t understand why a class like that should be part of our public > > API. What about it offers HBase functionality? IMHO - none. It’s a utility > > class for internal implementation detail. > > > > > > If this is a concern make this class Private. > > > > > > Making a release candidate is not free time. There is a cost at each > > iteration of volunteer RM bandwidth. Because this is the second one of > > these to be vetoed due to a compatibility report finding I ask that > > everyone look at it and chime in at this iteration. I don’t want to do this > > again. > > > > > > > > > > On Mar 12, 2019, at 8:16 AM, Sean Busbey <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > -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 > > > > > -- > Best regards, > Andrew > > Words like orphans lost among the crosstalk, meaning torn from truth's > decrepit hands > - A23, Crosstalk
