My reasoning is that RC2 has enough 'right' about it. Its radically better than our 0.19 offering, as is.
The benefit is that we have a week or two less of 0.19.x and that those who only work with released software will get the new hbase earlier. I'm anxious to get us over this 0.20.0 hump -- yes, it will have known defects but every release we've made has had known defects? -- and to get the latest documentation up on our site so noobs and those whose only interaction with the project is via hbase.org -- the marjority? -- are using, finding bugs, and asking questions about the new rather than the old. I'd also like to get the 0.21 hbase focus started. HBASE-1794 is amusing but for a fact, replay has been broken for many releases now. HBASE-1780 is a problem in 0.19.x HBASE-1784 is an issue, yeah, but looks like the hadoop install is missing hadoop-4681? St.Ack On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 8:19 AM, Andrew Purtell <[email protected]> wrote: > There is a lot riding on getting this release right. There have been some > serious bugs unearthed since 0.20.0 RC1. This makes me nervous. I'm not sure > I understand the rationale for releasing 0.20.0 now and then 0.20.1 in one > week, as opposed to taking the same amount of time to run another RC cycle > to produce a 0.20.0 without bad known defects. What is the benefit? > > HBASE-1794: Recovered data still seems missing until compaction, which > might not happen for 24 hours. Seems like a fix is already known? > HBASE-1780: Data loss, known fix. > HBASE-1784: Data loss. > > I'll try to put up a patch/band-aid against at least one of these tonight. > > HBASE-1784 is really troubling. We should roll back a failed compaction, > not vaporize data. -1 on those grounds alone. > > - Andy > > > > > ________________________________ > From: stack <[email protected]> > To: [email protected] > Sent: Wednesday, August 26, 2009 4:21:33 PM > Subject: Re: ANN: hbase 0.20.0 Release Candidate 2 available for download > > It will take a week or so to roll a new RC and to test and vote on it. > > Why not let out RC2 as 0.20.0 and do 0.20.1 within the next week or so? > > The balancing issue happens when you new node online only. Usually > balancing ain't bad. > > The Mathias issue is bad but still being investigated. > > Andrew? > > St.Ack > > > On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 1:04 AM, Mathias Herberts < > [email protected]> wrote: > > > On Mon, Aug 24, 2009 at 16:51, Jean-Daniel Cryans<[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > +1 I ran it without any problem for a while. I asked Mathias if 1784 > > > should kill it and he thinks no since it is not deterministic. > > > > Given the latest run I did and the associated logs/investigation which > > clearly show that the missing rows is related to failed compactions I > > change my mind and now think 1784 should kill this RC. > > > > so -1 for rc2. > > > > Mathias. > > > > > > >
