okay, then I would vote +1 after stack's explanation.
On Thu, Aug 7, 2008 at 1:52 AM, stack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Jim Kellerman wrote: >> >> -1 With the late inclusion of HBASE-796, there are a number of examples in >> javadoc that still reference Text, and I found (without an exhaustive >> search) classes that still have un-deprecated methods that accept text: >> e.g., HColumnDescriptor, HMsg, HBaseAdmin, BatchUpdate. There may be more. >> > > This is a bug for sure -- Its what I get for rushing in a change at last > minute -- but I'd venture that the fact that we're missing a few > @deprecated's in javadoc should be considered a minor issue and shouldn't > sink the RC. I'd think that the many @deprecateds in HTable sufficient to > convey the general notion that methods taking Text are going to be removed > in the next release. > > Verifying RCs takes time. We've gotten in two +1s at this point. I know > that in at least one case, it took some substantial effort on the part of > the voter validating the candidate. Would be grand if we could avoid > another RC cycle. > > How about we let this RC progress and if sufficient votes, release it as > 0.2.0 in spite of the above bug. Meantime I'll make a new issue to fix the > missing @deprecateds and file it for inclusion in 0.2.1? > > Thanks Jim, > St.Ack > > >> My opinion: either back out 796 for 0.2.0 (because 0.3.0 will only address >> a handful of bugs before hadoop-0.19 is out there) and include 796 in 0.3.0, >> removing the deprecated methods in 0.4.0 (tied to hadoop-0.19) or going >> through 0.2.0 with a fine tooth comb and changing examples that use Text and >> finishing the deprecating of methods. >> >> --- >> Jim Kellerman, Senior Engineer; Powerset >> >> >> >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: stack [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >>> Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2008 2:43 PM >>> To: [email protected]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>> Subject: [ANN] hbase-0.2.0 Release Candidate 2 >>> >>> This is the second 0.2.0 release candidate. It is available >>> for download here: >>> >>> http://people.apache.org/~stack/hbase-0.2.0-candidate-2/ >>> >>> Please take this candidate for test drive. Check the >>> documentation, that unit tests all complete on your platform, etc. >>> >>> Should we release this candidate as hbase 0.2.0? Vote yes or >>> no before Friday, August 8th. >>> >>> See [4] below for list of fixes since RC1. Thanks to all >>> involved testing and fixing bugs in this second RC. >>> >>> Yours, >>> The HBase Team >>> >>> P.S. Release 0.2.0 has over 250 issues resolved [1] since the >>> branch for >>> 0.1 hbase was made. Be warned that hbase 0.2.0 is not >>> backward compatible with the hbase 0.1 API. See [2] Izaak >>> Rubins' notes on the high-level API differences between 0.1 >>> and 0.2. For notes on how to migrate your 0.1 era hbase data >>> to 0.2, see Izaak's migration guide [3]. To run 0.2.0 on >>> hadoop 0.18.0, replace the 0.17.1 jars under $HBASE_HOME/lib >>> with their 0.18.x equivalents and then recompile. >>> >>> 1. >>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?version >>> >> >> =12312955&styleName=Html&projectId=12310753&Create=Create >> >>> >>> 2. http://wiki.apache.org/hadoop/Hbase/Plan-0.2/APIChanges >>> 3. http://wiki.apache.org/hadoop/Hbase/HowToMigrate >>> 4. >>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/IssueNavigator.jspa?rese >>> >> >> t=true&&pid=12310753&updated%3Aprevious=-1w+3d&status=5&status=6> >> &sorter/field=updated&sorter/order=DESC >> >>> >>> No virus found in this incoming message. >>> Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com >>> Version: 8.0.138 / Virus Database: 270.5.12/1592 - Release >>> Date: 8/5/2008 6:03 AM >>> >>> > >
