Here are the open blockers: https://issues.cloudera.org/issues/?jql=project%20%3D%20IMPALA%20AND%20status%20in%20(Open%2C%20Reopened)%20AND%20priority%20%3D%20Blocker
There seem to be a bunch of other blockers, but I think the remaining ones are all pre-existing issues, testing, or flaky tests that we can move out to the next release. On Thu, Jan 5, 2017 at 11:55 AM, Tim Armstrong <[email protected]> wrote: > +1 for reverting it. It doesn't add any new functionality so I don't see > the value in including it in the release. > > On Thu, Jan 5, 2017 at 10:58 AM, Henry Robinson <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> +1 for reverting it. It's a recent, major change and it's still settling. >> >> On 5 January 2017 at 10:49, Jim Apple <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> > Yes, that is in the branch: >> > https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=incubator-impala. >> > git;a=shortlog;h=refs/heads/branch-2.8.0 >> > >> > Here are some options: >> > >> > 1. Burn this branch, make a new one without the commit but with >> > everything else. Pros: no blocker. Cons: cherry-picking hell. >> > >> > 2. Take the branch before this commit. Pros: no blocker. Cons: missing >> > other bug fixes >> > >> > 3. Wait for a fix. Pros: no blocker. Cons: delay >> > >> > 4. Commit to master a git revert of that patch. Pros: no blocker; >> > fixes blocker on branch and master. Cons: add noise to commit history >> > >> > I'd like to git revert it. What do you all think? >> > >> > On Thu, Jan 5, 2017 at 10:39 AM, Tim Armstrong <[email protected] >> > >> > wrote: >> > > This one: >> > > >> > > http://gerrit.cloudera.org:8080/4418 >> > > >> > > On 5 Jan 2017 10:15 AM, "Jim Apple" <[email protected]> wrote: >> > > >> > >> Which commit introduced it? >> > >> >> > >> On Thu, Jan 5, 2017 at 10:12 AM, Tim Armstrong < >> [email protected] >> > > >> > >> wrote: >> > >> > I think we have some open blockers for 2.8. Or at least one that >> was >> > >> > introduced in a recent commit . >> > >> > https://issues.cloudera.org/browse/IMPALA-4707. Do we plan to >> > include a >> > >> fix >> > >> > or just exclude the commit that introduced it? >> > >> > >> > >> > On 5 Jan 2017 9:09 AM, "Jim Apple" <[email protected]> wrote: >> > >> > >> > >> > I have now also tested the docs build: >> > >> > http://jenkins.impala.io:8080/view/Utility/job/docs-build/92/ >> > >> > >> > >> > On Thu, Jan 5, 2017 at 8:28 AM, Jim Apple <[email protected]> >> > wrote: >> > >> >> I have now tested this hash (4fa9270e647b9c097295dcc13d9713 >> > 6cca3139ad) >> > >> >> on public Jenkins: >> > >> >> >> > >> >> http://jenkins.impala.io:8080/view/Utility/job/parallel-all- >> > tests/130/ >> > >> >> http://jenkins.impala.io:8080/view/Utility/job/ubuntu-14.04- >> > >> > from-scratch/434/ >> > >> >> http://jenkins.impala.io:8080/view/Utility/job/ubuntu-14.04- >> > >> > from-scratch/435/ >> > >> >> http://jenkins.impala.io:8080/view/Utility/job/ubuntu-14.04- >> > >> > from-scratch/436/ >> > >> >> >> > >> >> That covers RAT (the tool for checking copyright compliance), >> various >> > >> >> build options (including ninja, release, asan, shared libs), >> loading >> > >> >> the data from scratch and running all tests in core and in >> > exhaustive, >> > >> >> clang-tidy, and the build we instruct IPMC release testers to run >> > >> >> (bin/bootstrap_build.sh). >> > >> >> >> > >> >> I have also created a git branch: >> > >> >> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=incubator-impala. >> > >> > git;a=shortlog;h=refs/heads/branch-2.8.0 >> > >> >> >> > >> >> I am working on a commit to add a disclaimer to the docs >> > >> >> (https://gerrit.cloudera.org/#/c/5610/) and then I will upload a >> > >> >> release candidate tarball. >> > >> >> >> > >> >> Please prepare yourself to vote. Instructions are here: >> > >> >> >> > >> >> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IMPALA/ >> > >> > DRAFT%3A+How+to+Release#DRAFT:HowtoRelease- >> > HowtoVoteonaReleaseCandidate >> > >> >> >> > >> >> On Wed, Jan 4, 2017 at 7:17 PM, Jim Apple <[email protected]> >> > wrote: >> > >> >>>> I'd figure out a way to add a big caveat to the docs. Maybe on >> the >> > >> > landing >> > >> >>>> page? Even better if there's a template we can add a caveat to >> that >> > >> > appears >> > >> >>>> on every page. >> > >> >>> >> > >> >>> I like this idea. I'll prepare a patch for the landing page. >> > >> >>> >> > >> >>> I don't think there is a simple way to do it on every page. John, >> > >> >>> Laurel, am I wrong abut that? >> > >> >> > >> >> >> >> -- >> Henry Robinson >> Software Engineer >> Cloudera >> 415-994-6679 >> > >
