Sounds good Sean. We can wait. 

> On Sep 28, 2020, at 11:17 AM, Sean Busbey <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> I'd like to make sure HBASE-25083 gets handled for the 1.7 release.
> Not sure if I'll have time before the weekend but I'll make a go. It's
> not particularly critical.
> 
>> On Mon, Sep 28, 2020 at 10:03 AM Andrew Purtell <[email protected]> wrote:
>> 
>> Thank you so much Reid.
>> 
>> I will take a look again this week. Bharath landed the master registry
>> work. Viraj's backport of the online slowlog is also about to be approved
>> and merged (by me I think). Now that these are in it's time for another
>> pass of unit test checking, then we can proceed with spinning the RC.
>> 
>> TestClientOperationInterrupt can be temporarily disabled with a JIRA filed
>> to re-enable if it's going to take too much time to fix right away.
>> 
>> Before spinning the RC I like to generate a report with the compatibility
>> checker. There will be some changes flagged in the report this time. We
>> typically allow changes that are binary compatible per the Java guidelines:
>> https://docs.oracle.com/javase/specs/jls/se8/html/jls-13.html . Our own
>> compatibility guidelines are written to be flexible. For each exception we
>> can consider the changes case by case and decide if the changes as-is are
>> fine, or if additional backwards compatibility work is needed, or if a
>> change must be partially or completely reverted.
>> 
>> Once the compatibility situation is settled it would be time to spin the RC
>> bits using make_rc.sh. If you want to do that, fine by me, or I can do it.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> On Mon, Sep 28, 2020 at 4:10 AM Reid Chan <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> 
>>> TestRestartCluster (IO error on shutdown) is fixed in HBASE-25030
>>> TestReplicationDisableInactivePeer (testDisableInactivePeer) is fixed in
>>> HBASE-25031
>>> TestFromClientSide (testCheckAndDeleteWithCompareOp) &
>>> TestFromClientSideWithCoprocessor (testCheckAndDeleteWithCompareOp) are
>>> fixed in HBASE-25025. But after HBASE-25025,
>>> TestFromClientSide#testCacheOnWriteEvictOnClose surfaces, 100% wrong, I
>>> will take a look at it.
>>> TestClientOperationInterrupt (testInterrupt50Percent). Filed HBASE-25024,
>>> but this test is hard to fix, if we have to make sure 50% threads get
>>> interrupted.
>>> TestReplicationSmallTests (testHBase14905), it does fail occasionally,
>>> pending.
>>> 
>>> TestClusterPortAssignment
>>> TestHCM
>>> TestExecutorService
>>> TestZKLessAMOnCluster
>>> TestRSGroupsKillRS
>>> Looks good on my local tests, Let me try few more times.
>>> 
>>> All tests were ran on both centos server and my local laptop(mac), for
>>> making sure it fixed or indeed flaky.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> --------------------------
>>> 
>>> Best regards,
>>> R.C
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> ________________________________________
>>> From: Andrew Purtell <[email protected]>
>>> Sent: 09 September 2020 00:20
>>> To: dev
>>> Subject: Re: Release 1.7.0 (for real this time)
>>> 
>>> Speaking of known flakes, if you have a moment could you please file JIRAs
>>> and mark the fix version at least as 1.7.0, for visibility?
>>> 
>>> Last week I looped the test suite 100 times and found these, so you can
>>> ignore them as I'll take care of this for them:
>>> 
>>>   - TestFromClientSide (testCheckAndDeleteWithCompareOp)
>>>   - TestFromClientSideWithCoprocessor (testCheckAndDeleteWithCompareOp)
>>>   - TestClientOperationInterrupt (testInterrupt50Percent)
>>>   - TestReplicationSmallTests (testHBase14905)
>>>   - TestReplicationDisableInactivePeer (testDisableInactivePeer)
>>>   - TestRestartCluster (IO error on shutdown)
>>> 
>>> From
>>> 
>>> https://ci-hadoop.apache.org/job/HBase/job/HBase-Find-Flaky-Tests/job/branch-1/
>>> there are these too:
>>> 
>>>   - TestClusterPortAssignment
>>>   - TestHCM
>>>   - TestExecutorService
>>>   - TestZKLessAMOnCluster
>>>   - TestRSGroupsKillRS
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Tue, Sep 8, 2020 at 8:50 AM Bharath Vissapragada <[email protected]>
>>> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Master registry backport work <https://github.com/apache/hbase/pull/2280
>>>> 
>>>> for branch-1 is ready for review if anyone wants to take a look. Changes
>>>> are a bit more involved than branch-2/master due to code divergence,
>>> Java-7
>>>> compatibility etc. All the tests seem to be passing (except a couple of
>>>> flakes which are known issues in other branches). Given the size of the
>>> PR,
>>>> I'm happy to break it in smaller pieces if needed.
>>>> 
>>>> On Thu, Aug 20, 2020 at 9:43 AM Andrew Purtell <[email protected]>
>>>> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> Updates:
>>>>> 
>>>>> Reid and I will start prerelease work, like unit test hygiene and
>>>>> prequalification with ITBLL. This will probably take a week or two.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Viraj is currently working on a backport of the named queue facility
>>> and
>>>>> online slow log and balancer decision log based on it. It might have
>>> time
>>>>> to get in.When it's ready for potential commit we can decide how much
>>>>> prequalification work would be invalidated by more changes to branch-1
>>> at
>>>>> that time.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Bharath mentioned to me he's currently working on a backport of the
>>>> master
>>>>> registry for configuration. This might also have time to get in. When
>>>> it's
>>>>> ready for potential commit we can decide how much prequalification work
>>>>> would be invalidated by more changes to branch-1 at that time.
>>>>> 
>>>>> On Fri, Aug 14, 2020 at 10:50 AM Andrew Purtell <[email protected]>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> Next week work on release 1.7.0 will begin.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> It doesn't look like much beyond ad hoc backporting and operationally
>>>>>> focused bugfixes have been happening in branch-1 for a while, which
>>> is
>>>>>> good, and there's no reason not to continue this activity while RC
>>> work
>>>>> is
>>>>>> in progress.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> If you do have any branch-1 targeted work pending, please consider
>>>>>> committing it in the next week or so. When we have most pending work
>>>>>> flushed any test stabilization effort will be more likely to succeed.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Thanks for your attention and consideration.
>>>> 
>>>> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Sean

Reply via email to