Re: Release 1.4.0 update

[Andrew Purtell]

I pushed a tag for 1.4.0RC0 as 3839a01ddc430f68ad83c6be1317a34cc16cf13d.

Feel free to commit to branch-1 and branch-1.4 as I finish with 1.4.0RC0.
Wednesday.


On Mon, Dec 4, 2017 at 6:49 PM, Andrew Purtell  wrote:

> I fixed HBASE-19429 by disabling checkstyle report generation during the
> site target. There's something wrong with it. Maybe too many warnings? I
> get an inscrutable error on MacOS and a segfault in the JVM on Linux.
>
>
> On Mon, Dec 4, 2017 at 6:17 PM, Andrew Purtell 
> wrote:
>
>> I am blocked on HBASE-19429. If someone could help I could really use it.
>> I'm out of time today and won't make the self-imposed timeline for release
>> today. I'm out tomorrow. Earliest will be Wednesday but I have no idea how
>> to proceed with this build failure.
>>
>> On Mon, Dec 4, 2017 at 12:46 PM, Andrew Purtell 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> We need to discuss branch-1 policy regarding builds against Hadoop
>>> 3.0.0. See HBASE-19421
>>>
>>> On Mon, Dec 4, 2017 at 11:37 AM, Andrew Purtell 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 I propose to eject hbase-native-client to GitHub on HBASE-19419

 On Fri, Dec 1, 2017 at 9:46 AM, Andrew Purtell 
 wrote:

> No problem, please commit it.
>
> On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 6:19 PM, Guanghao Zhang 
> wrote:
>
>> Andrew, HBASE-18626 is a document fix for the incompatible change
>> about the
>> replication TableCFs' config. Can we include it for 1.4? Thanks.
>>
>> 2017-12-01 9:19 GMT+08:00 Stack :
>>
>> > I pushed HBASE-18233. Thanks for finding the issue and patience
>> waiting on
>> > fix Andrew.
>> > St.Ack
>> >
>> > On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 5:04 PM, Andrew Purtell <
>> apurt...@apache.org>
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> > > No problem, committing it now
>> > >
>> > > On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 4:54 PM, Sergey Soldatov <
>> > sergeysolda...@gmail.com
>> > > >
>> > > wrote:
>> > >
>> > > > Andrew,
>> > > >
>> > > > Can we include HBASE-19393 as well? Quite annoying issue and
>> very
>> > simple
>> > > > fix.
>> > > >
>> > > > Thanks,
>> > > > Sergey
>> > > >
>> > > > On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 3:47 PM, Andrew Purtell <
>> apurt...@apache.org>
>> > > > wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > > Not too late, no
>> > > > >
>> > > > > On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 3:31 PM, Stack 
>> wrote:
>> > > > >
>> > > > > > Fix is up if it is not too late Andrew.
>> > > > > > St.Ack
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 1:58 PM, Stack 
>> wrote:
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > > Andrew, your testing has turned up an issue in
>> HBASE-18233. It is
>> > > > > present
>> > > > > > > in the 1.4 candidate patch and in 1.3. The failure is
>> > > intermittent. I
>> > > > > am
>> > > > > > > working on a fix but want to make sure I have it right.
>> So, I
>> > > > withdraw
>> > > > > my
>> > > > > > > request that 1.4 include it.
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > Thanks,
>> > > > > > > S
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 5:14 PM, Andrew Purtell <
>> > > apurt...@apache.org
>> > > > >
>> > > > > > > wrote:
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> TestGlobalThrottler is a problem stemming from the
>> revert of
>> > > > > HBASE-9465
>> > > > > > >> ​ on branch-1.4. The test came in on HBASE-17314 so I'll
>> also
>> > > revert
>> > > > > > that
>> > > > > > >> from branch-1.4. For more on this see HBASE-19381
>> > > > > > >> ​
>> > > > > > >>
>> > > > > > >> On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 5:00 PM, Andrew Purtell <
>> > > > apurt...@apache.org>
>> > > > > > >> wrote:
>> > > > > > >>
>> > > > > > >> > The TestEndToEndSplitTransaction failure will be fixed
>> by
>> > > > > HBASE-19379.
>> > > > > > >> >
>> > > > > > >> > The TestGlobalThrottler issue is a hang, which is
>> probably why
>> > > it
>> > > > > > >> slipped
>> > > > > > >> > through the cracks. I went back 32 commits from head
>> and it
>> > was
>> > > > > still
>> > > > > > >> > stuck. 64 commits back it's good. Somewhere in
>> between. Will
>> > get
>> > > > to
>> > > > > > the
>> > > > > > >> > offending commit shortly.
>> > > > > > >> >
>> > > > > > >> >
>> > > > > > >> > On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 3:56 PM, Andrew Purtell <
>> > > > > apurt...@apache.org>
>> > > > > > >> > wrote:
>> > > > > > >> >
>> > > > > > >> >> Thanks. I'll take a look. They were passing for me
>> before I
>> > > went
>> > > > > out
>> > > > > > on
>> > > > > > >> >> vacation.
>> > > > > > >> >>
>> > > > > > >> >>
>> > > > > > >> >> On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 3:52 PM, 

Re: Release 1.4.0 update

[Andrew Purtell]

I fixed HBASE-19429 by disabling checkstyle report generation during the
site target. There's something wrong with it. Maybe too many warnings? I
get an inscrutable error on MacOS and a segfault in the JVM on Linux.


On Mon, Dec 4, 2017 at 6:17 PM, Andrew Purtell  wrote:

> I am blocked on HBASE-19429. If someone could help I could really use it.
> I'm out of time today and won't make the self-imposed timeline for release
> today. I'm out tomorrow. Earliest will be Wednesday but I have no idea how
> to proceed with this build failure.
>
> On Mon, Dec 4, 2017 at 12:46 PM, Andrew Purtell 
> wrote:
>
>> We need to discuss branch-1 policy regarding builds against Hadoop 3.0.0.
>> See HBASE-19421
>>
>> On Mon, Dec 4, 2017 at 11:37 AM, Andrew Purtell 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I propose to eject hbase-native-client to GitHub on HBASE-19419
>>>
>>> On Fri, Dec 1, 2017 at 9:46 AM, Andrew Purtell 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 No problem, please commit it.

 On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 6:19 PM, Guanghao Zhang 
 wrote:

> Andrew, HBASE-18626 is a document fix for the incompatible change
> about the
> replication TableCFs' config. Can we include it for 1.4? Thanks.
>
> 2017-12-01 9:19 GMT+08:00 Stack :
>
> > I pushed HBASE-18233. Thanks for finding the issue and patience
> waiting on
> > fix Andrew.
> > St.Ack
> >
> > On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 5:04 PM, Andrew Purtell  >
> > wrote:
> >
> > > No problem, committing it now
> > >
> > > On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 4:54 PM, Sergey Soldatov <
> > sergeysolda...@gmail.com
> > > >
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Andrew,
> > > >
> > > > Can we include HBASE-19393 as well? Quite annoying issue and very
> > simple
> > > > fix.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > Sergey
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 3:47 PM, Andrew Purtell <
> apurt...@apache.org>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Not too late, no
> > > > >
> > > > > On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 3:31 PM, Stack 
> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Fix is up if it is not too late Andrew.
> > > > > > St.Ack
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 1:58 PM, Stack 
> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Andrew, your testing has turned up an issue in
> HBASE-18233. It is
> > > > > present
> > > > > > > in the 1.4 candidate patch and in 1.3. The failure is
> > > intermittent. I
> > > > > am
> > > > > > > working on a fix but want to make sure I have it right.
> So, I
> > > > withdraw
> > > > > my
> > > > > > > request that 1.4 include it.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > > S
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 5:14 PM, Andrew Purtell <
> > > apurt...@apache.org
> > > > >
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> TestGlobalThrottler is a problem stemming from the revert
> of
> > > > > HBASE-9465
> > > > > > >> ​ on branch-1.4. The test came in on HBASE-17314 so I'll
> also
> > > revert
> > > > > > that
> > > > > > >> from branch-1.4. For more on this see HBASE-19381
> > > > > > >> ​
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 5:00 PM, Andrew Purtell <
> > > > apurt...@apache.org>
> > > > > > >> wrote:
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> > The TestEndToEndSplitTransaction failure will be fixed
> by
> > > > > HBASE-19379.
> > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > >> > The TestGlobalThrottler issue is a hang, which is
> probably why
> > > it
> > > > > > >> slipped
> > > > > > >> > through the cracks. I went back 32 commits from head
> and it
> > was
> > > > > still
> > > > > > >> > stuck. 64 commits back it's good. Somewhere in between.
> Will
> > get
> > > > to
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > >> > offending commit shortly.
> > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > >> > On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 3:56 PM, Andrew Purtell <
> > > > > apurt...@apache.org>
> > > > > > >> > wrote:
> > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > >> >> Thanks. I'll take a look. They were passing for me
> before I
> > > went
> > > > > out
> > > > > > on
> > > > > > >> >> vacation.
> > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > >> >> On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 3:52 PM, Stack <
> st...@duboce.net>
> > > wrote:
> > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > >> >>> Thanks.
> > > > > > >> >>>
> > > > > > >> >>> BTW, I noticed this morning that TestGlobalThrottler
> and
> > > > > > >> >>> TestEndToEndSplitTransaction
> > > > > > >> >>> fail locally for me and up on jenkins as part of
> hadoopqa
> > runs
> > > > and
> > > > > > 

Re: Release 1.4.0 update

[Andrew Purtell]

I am blocked on HBASE-19429. If someone could help I could really use it.
I'm out of time today and won't make the self-imposed timeline for release
today. I'm out tomorrow. Earliest will be Wednesday but I have no idea how
to proceed with this build failure.

On Mon, Dec 4, 2017 at 12:46 PM, Andrew Purtell  wrote:

> We need to discuss branch-1 policy regarding builds against Hadoop 3.0.0.
> See HBASE-19421
>
> On Mon, Dec 4, 2017 at 11:37 AM, Andrew Purtell 
> wrote:
>
>> I propose to eject hbase-native-client to GitHub on HBASE-19419
>>
>> On Fri, Dec 1, 2017 at 9:46 AM, Andrew Purtell 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> No problem, please commit it.
>>>
>>> On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 6:19 PM, Guanghao Zhang 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 Andrew, HBASE-18626 is a document fix for the incompatible change about
 the
 replication TableCFs' config. Can we include it for 1.4? Thanks.

 2017-12-01 9:19 GMT+08:00 Stack :

 > I pushed HBASE-18233. Thanks for finding the issue and patience
 waiting on
 > fix Andrew.
 > St.Ack
 >
 > On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 5:04 PM, Andrew Purtell 
 > wrote:
 >
 > > No problem, committing it now
 > >
 > > On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 4:54 PM, Sergey Soldatov <
 > sergeysolda...@gmail.com
 > > >
 > > wrote:
 > >
 > > > Andrew,
 > > >
 > > > Can we include HBASE-19393 as well? Quite annoying issue and very
 > simple
 > > > fix.
 > > >
 > > > Thanks,
 > > > Sergey
 > > >
 > > > On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 3:47 PM, Andrew Purtell <
 apurt...@apache.org>
 > > > wrote:
 > > >
 > > > > Not too late, no
 > > > >
 > > > > On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 3:31 PM, Stack 
 wrote:
 > > > >
 > > > > > Fix is up if it is not too late Andrew.
 > > > > > St.Ack
 > > > > >
 > > > > > On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 1:58 PM, Stack 
 wrote:
 > > > > >
 > > > > > > Andrew, your testing has turned up an issue in HBASE-18233.
 It is
 > > > > present
 > > > > > > in the 1.4 candidate patch and in 1.3. The failure is
 > > intermittent. I
 > > > > am
 > > > > > > working on a fix but want to make sure I have it right. So,
 I
 > > > withdraw
 > > > > my
 > > > > > > request that 1.4 include it.
 > > > > > >
 > > > > > > Thanks,
 > > > > > > S
 > > > > > >
 > > > > > > On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 5:14 PM, Andrew Purtell <
 > > apurt...@apache.org
 > > > >
 > > > > > > wrote:
 > > > > > >
 > > > > > >> TestGlobalThrottler is a problem stemming from the revert
 of
 > > > > HBASE-9465
 > > > > > >> ​ on branch-1.4. The test came in on HBASE-17314 so I'll
 also
 > > revert
 > > > > > that
 > > > > > >> from branch-1.4. For more on this see HBASE-19381
 > > > > > >> ​
 > > > > > >>
 > > > > > >> On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 5:00 PM, Andrew Purtell <
 > > > apurt...@apache.org>
 > > > > > >> wrote:
 > > > > > >>
 > > > > > >> > The TestEndToEndSplitTransaction failure will be fixed by
 > > > > HBASE-19379.
 > > > > > >> >
 > > > > > >> > The TestGlobalThrottler issue is a hang, which is
 probably why
 > > it
 > > > > > >> slipped
 > > > > > >> > through the cracks. I went back 32 commits from head and
 it
 > was
 > > > > still
 > > > > > >> > stuck. 64 commits back it's good. Somewhere in between.
 Will
 > get
 > > > to
 > > > > > the
 > > > > > >> > offending commit shortly.
 > > > > > >> >
 > > > > > >> >
 > > > > > >> > On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 3:56 PM, Andrew Purtell <
 > > > > apurt...@apache.org>
 > > > > > >> > wrote:
 > > > > > >> >
 > > > > > >> >> Thanks. I'll take a look. They were passing for me
 before I
 > > went
 > > > > out
 > > > > > on
 > > > > > >> >> vacation.
 > > > > > >> >>
 > > > > > >> >>
 > > > > > >> >> On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 3:52 PM, Stack <
 st...@duboce.net>
 > > wrote:
 > > > > > >> >>
 > > > > > >> >>> Thanks.
 > > > > > >> >>>
 > > > > > >> >>> BTW, I noticed this morning that TestGlobalThrottler
 and
 > > > > > >> >>> TestEndToEndSplitTransaction
 > > > > > >> >>> fail locally for me and up on jenkins as part of
 hadoopqa
 > runs
 > > > and
 > > > > > on
 > > > > > >> >>> recent 1.4 runs.
 > > > > > >> >>>
 > > > > > >> >>> I tried to poke at why. They seem fine in 1.2, 1.3,
 and 2.0.
 > > Got
 > > > > > >> >>> distracted
 > > > > > >> >>> and got no further than this
 > > > > > >> >>>
 > > > > > >> >>> S
 > > > > > >> >>>
 > > > > > >> >>> On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 3:00 PM, Andrew Purtell <
 > > > > > apurt...@apache.org>
 > > > > > >> >>> wrote:
 

Re: Release 1.4.0 update

[Andrew Purtell]

We need to discuss branch-1 policy regarding builds against Hadoop 3.0.0.
See HBASE-19421

On Mon, Dec 4, 2017 at 11:37 AM, Andrew Purtell  wrote:

> I propose to eject hbase-native-client to GitHub on HBASE-19419
>
> On Fri, Dec 1, 2017 at 9:46 AM, Andrew Purtell 
> wrote:
>
>> No problem, please commit it.
>>
>> On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 6:19 PM, Guanghao Zhang 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Andrew, HBASE-18626 is a document fix for the incompatible change about
>>> the
>>> replication TableCFs' config. Can we include it for 1.4? Thanks.
>>>
>>> 2017-12-01 9:19 GMT+08:00 Stack :
>>>
>>> > I pushed HBASE-18233. Thanks for finding the issue and patience
>>> waiting on
>>> > fix Andrew.
>>> > St.Ack
>>> >
>>> > On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 5:04 PM, Andrew Purtell 
>>> > wrote:
>>> >
>>> > > No problem, committing it now
>>> > >
>>> > > On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 4:54 PM, Sergey Soldatov <
>>> > sergeysolda...@gmail.com
>>> > > >
>>> > > wrote:
>>> > >
>>> > > > Andrew,
>>> > > >
>>> > > > Can we include HBASE-19393 as well? Quite annoying issue and very
>>> > simple
>>> > > > fix.
>>> > > >
>>> > > > Thanks,
>>> > > > Sergey
>>> > > >
>>> > > > On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 3:47 PM, Andrew Purtell <
>>> apurt...@apache.org>
>>> > > > wrote:
>>> > > >
>>> > > > > Not too late, no
>>> > > > >
>>> > > > > On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 3:31 PM, Stack  wrote:
>>> > > > >
>>> > > > > > Fix is up if it is not too late Andrew.
>>> > > > > > St.Ack
>>> > > > > >
>>> > > > > > On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 1:58 PM, Stack 
>>> wrote:
>>> > > > > >
>>> > > > > > > Andrew, your testing has turned up an issue in HBASE-18233.
>>> It is
>>> > > > > present
>>> > > > > > > in the 1.4 candidate patch and in 1.3. The failure is
>>> > > intermittent. I
>>> > > > > am
>>> > > > > > > working on a fix but want to make sure I have it right. So, I
>>> > > > withdraw
>>> > > > > my
>>> > > > > > > request that 1.4 include it.
>>> > > > > > >
>>> > > > > > > Thanks,
>>> > > > > > > S
>>> > > > > > >
>>> > > > > > > On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 5:14 PM, Andrew Purtell <
>>> > > apurt...@apache.org
>>> > > > >
>>> > > > > > > wrote:
>>> > > > > > >
>>> > > > > > >> TestGlobalThrottler is a problem stemming from the revert of
>>> > > > > HBASE-9465
>>> > > > > > >> ​ on branch-1.4. The test came in on HBASE-17314 so I'll
>>> also
>>> > > revert
>>> > > > > > that
>>> > > > > > >> from branch-1.4. For more on this see HBASE-19381
>>> > > > > > >> ​
>>> > > > > > >>
>>> > > > > > >> On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 5:00 PM, Andrew Purtell <
>>> > > > apurt...@apache.org>
>>> > > > > > >> wrote:
>>> > > > > > >>
>>> > > > > > >> > The TestEndToEndSplitTransaction failure will be fixed by
>>> > > > > HBASE-19379.
>>> > > > > > >> >
>>> > > > > > >> > The TestGlobalThrottler issue is a hang, which is
>>> probably why
>>> > > it
>>> > > > > > >> slipped
>>> > > > > > >> > through the cracks. I went back 32 commits from head and
>>> it
>>> > was
>>> > > > > still
>>> > > > > > >> > stuck. 64 commits back it's good. Somewhere in between.
>>> Will
>>> > get
>>> > > > to
>>> > > > > > the
>>> > > > > > >> > offending commit shortly.
>>> > > > > > >> >
>>> > > > > > >> >
>>> > > > > > >> > On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 3:56 PM, Andrew Purtell <
>>> > > > > apurt...@apache.org>
>>> > > > > > >> > wrote:
>>> > > > > > >> >
>>> > > > > > >> >> Thanks. I'll take a look. They were passing for me
>>> before I
>>> > > went
>>> > > > > out
>>> > > > > > on
>>> > > > > > >> >> vacation.
>>> > > > > > >> >>
>>> > > > > > >> >>
>>> > > > > > >> >> On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 3:52 PM, Stack >> >
>>> > > wrote:
>>> > > > > > >> >>
>>> > > > > > >> >>> Thanks.
>>> > > > > > >> >>>
>>> > > > > > >> >>> BTW, I noticed this morning that TestGlobalThrottler and
>>> > > > > > >> >>> TestEndToEndSplitTransaction
>>> > > > > > >> >>> fail locally for me and up on jenkins as part of
>>> hadoopqa
>>> > runs
>>> > > > and
>>> > > > > > on
>>> > > > > > >> >>> recent 1.4 runs.
>>> > > > > > >> >>>
>>> > > > > > >> >>> I tried to poke at why. They seem fine in 1.2, 1.3, and
>>> 2.0.
>>> > > Got
>>> > > > > > >> >>> distracted
>>> > > > > > >> >>> and got no further than this
>>> > > > > > >> >>>
>>> > > > > > >> >>> S
>>> > > > > > >> >>>
>>> > > > > > >> >>> On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 3:00 PM, Andrew Purtell <
>>> > > > > > apurt...@apache.org>
>>> > > > > > >> >>> wrote:
>>> > > > > > >> >>>
>>> > > > > > >> >>> > Ok, no problem.
>>> > > > > > >> >>> >
>>> > > > > > >> >>> > On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 2:59 PM, Stack <
>>> st...@duboce.net>
>>> > > > > wrote:
>>> > > > > > >> >>> >
>>> > > > > > >> >>> > > May I get HBASE-18233 into 1.4.0 Andrew? It is in
>>> 1.2
>>> > and
>>> > > > 1.3.
>>> > > > > > >> >>> Waiting on
>>> > > > > > >> >>> > > hadoopqa run. Would be good to have it all up and
>>> down
>>> > > > > branch-1.
>>> > > > > > >> >>> > > Thanks Sir,
>>> > > > > > >> >>> > 

Re: Release 1.4.0 update

[Andrew Purtell]

I propose to eject hbase-native-client to GitHub on HBASE-19419

On Fri, Dec 1, 2017 at 9:46 AM, Andrew Purtell  wrote:

> No problem, please commit it.
>
> On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 6:19 PM, Guanghao Zhang 
> wrote:
>
>> Andrew, HBASE-18626 is a document fix for the incompatible change about
>> the
>> replication TableCFs' config. Can we include it for 1.4? Thanks.
>>
>> 2017-12-01 9:19 GMT+08:00 Stack :
>>
>> > I pushed HBASE-18233. Thanks for finding the issue and patience waiting
>> on
>> > fix Andrew.
>> > St.Ack
>> >
>> > On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 5:04 PM, Andrew Purtell 
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> > > No problem, committing it now
>> > >
>> > > On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 4:54 PM, Sergey Soldatov <
>> > sergeysolda...@gmail.com
>> > > >
>> > > wrote:
>> > >
>> > > > Andrew,
>> > > >
>> > > > Can we include HBASE-19393 as well? Quite annoying issue and very
>> > simple
>> > > > fix.
>> > > >
>> > > > Thanks,
>> > > > Sergey
>> > > >
>> > > > On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 3:47 PM, Andrew Purtell <
>> apurt...@apache.org>
>> > > > wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > > Not too late, no
>> > > > >
>> > > > > On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 3:31 PM, Stack  wrote:
>> > > > >
>> > > > > > Fix is up if it is not too late Andrew.
>> > > > > > St.Ack
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 1:58 PM, Stack 
>> wrote:
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > > Andrew, your testing has turned up an issue in HBASE-18233.
>> It is
>> > > > > present
>> > > > > > > in the 1.4 candidate patch and in 1.3. The failure is
>> > > intermittent. I
>> > > > > am
>> > > > > > > working on a fix but want to make sure I have it right. So, I
>> > > > withdraw
>> > > > > my
>> > > > > > > request that 1.4 include it.
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > Thanks,
>> > > > > > > S
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 5:14 PM, Andrew Purtell <
>> > > apurt...@apache.org
>> > > > >
>> > > > > > > wrote:
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> TestGlobalThrottler is a problem stemming from the revert of
>> > > > > HBASE-9465
>> > > > > > >> ​ on branch-1.4. The test came in on HBASE-17314 so I'll also
>> > > revert
>> > > > > > that
>> > > > > > >> from branch-1.4. For more on this see HBASE-19381
>> > > > > > >> ​
>> > > > > > >>
>> > > > > > >> On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 5:00 PM, Andrew Purtell <
>> > > > apurt...@apache.org>
>> > > > > > >> wrote:
>> > > > > > >>
>> > > > > > >> > The TestEndToEndSplitTransaction failure will be fixed by
>> > > > > HBASE-19379.
>> > > > > > >> >
>> > > > > > >> > The TestGlobalThrottler issue is a hang, which is probably
>> why
>> > > it
>> > > > > > >> slipped
>> > > > > > >> > through the cracks. I went back 32 commits from head and it
>> > was
>> > > > > still
>> > > > > > >> > stuck. 64 commits back it's good. Somewhere in between.
>> Will
>> > get
>> > > > to
>> > > > > > the
>> > > > > > >> > offending commit shortly.
>> > > > > > >> >
>> > > > > > >> >
>> > > > > > >> > On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 3:56 PM, Andrew Purtell <
>> > > > > apurt...@apache.org>
>> > > > > > >> > wrote:
>> > > > > > >> >
>> > > > > > >> >> Thanks. I'll take a look. They were passing for me before
>> I
>> > > went
>> > > > > out
>> > > > > > on
>> > > > > > >> >> vacation.
>> > > > > > >> >>
>> > > > > > >> >>
>> > > > > > >> >> On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 3:52 PM, Stack 
>> > > wrote:
>> > > > > > >> >>
>> > > > > > >> >>> Thanks.
>> > > > > > >> >>>
>> > > > > > >> >>> BTW, I noticed this morning that TestGlobalThrottler and
>> > > > > > >> >>> TestEndToEndSplitTransaction
>> > > > > > >> >>> fail locally for me and up on jenkins as part of hadoopqa
>> > runs
>> > > > and
>> > > > > > on
>> > > > > > >> >>> recent 1.4 runs.
>> > > > > > >> >>>
>> > > > > > >> >>> I tried to poke at why. They seem fine in 1.2, 1.3, and
>> 2.0.
>> > > Got
>> > > > > > >> >>> distracted
>> > > > > > >> >>> and got no further than this
>> > > > > > >> >>>
>> > > > > > >> >>> S
>> > > > > > >> >>>
>> > > > > > >> >>> On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 3:00 PM, Andrew Purtell <
>> > > > > > apurt...@apache.org>
>> > > > > > >> >>> wrote:
>> > > > > > >> >>>
>> > > > > > >> >>> > Ok, no problem.
>> > > > > > >> >>> >
>> > > > > > >> >>> > On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 2:59 PM, Stack <
>> st...@duboce.net>
>> > > > > wrote:
>> > > > > > >> >>> >
>> > > > > > >> >>> > > May I get HBASE-18233 into 1.4.0 Andrew? It is in 1.2
>> > and
>> > > > 1.3.
>> > > > > > >> >>> Waiting on
>> > > > > > >> >>> > > hadoopqa run. Would be good to have it all up and
>> down
>> > > > > branch-1.
>> > > > > > >> >>> > > Thanks Sir,
>> > > > > > >> >>> > > St.Ack
>> > > > > > >> >>> > >
>> > > > > > >> >>> > > On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 12:38 PM, Peter Somogyi <
>> > > > > > >> >>> psomo...@cloudera.com>
>> > > > > > >> >>> > > wrote:
>> > > > > > >> >>> > >
>> > > > > > >> >>> > > > HBASE-19188 was just resolved. :)
>> > > > > > >> >>> > > >
>> > > > > > >> >>> > > > On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 8:12 

Re: Release 1.4.0 update

[Andrew Purtell]

No problem, please commit it.

On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 6:19 PM, Guanghao Zhang  wrote:

> Andrew, HBASE-18626 is a document fix for the incompatible change about the
> replication TableCFs' config. Can we include it for 1.4? Thanks.
>
> 2017-12-01 9:19 GMT+08:00 Stack :
>
> > I pushed HBASE-18233. Thanks for finding the issue and patience waiting
> on
> > fix Andrew.
> > St.Ack
> >
> > On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 5:04 PM, Andrew Purtell 
> > wrote:
> >
> > > No problem, committing it now
> > >
> > > On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 4:54 PM, Sergey Soldatov <
> > sergeysolda...@gmail.com
> > > >
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Andrew,
> > > >
> > > > Can we include HBASE-19393 as well? Quite annoying issue and very
> > simple
> > > > fix.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > Sergey
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 3:47 PM, Andrew Purtell  >
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Not too late, no
> > > > >
> > > > > On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 3:31 PM, Stack  wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Fix is up if it is not too late Andrew.
> > > > > > St.Ack
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 1:58 PM, Stack  wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Andrew, your testing has turned up an issue in HBASE-18233. It
> is
> > > > > present
> > > > > > > in the 1.4 candidate patch and in 1.3. The failure is
> > > intermittent. I
> > > > > am
> > > > > > > working on a fix but want to make sure I have it right. So, I
> > > > withdraw
> > > > > my
> > > > > > > request that 1.4 include it.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > > S
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 5:14 PM, Andrew Purtell <
> > > apurt...@apache.org
> > > > >
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> TestGlobalThrottler is a problem stemming from the revert of
> > > > > HBASE-9465
> > > > > > >> ​ on branch-1.4. The test came in on HBASE-17314 so I'll also
> > > revert
> > > > > > that
> > > > > > >> from branch-1.4. For more on this see HBASE-19381
> > > > > > >> ​
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 5:00 PM, Andrew Purtell <
> > > > apurt...@apache.org>
> > > > > > >> wrote:
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> > The TestEndToEndSplitTransaction failure will be fixed by
> > > > > HBASE-19379.
> > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > >> > The TestGlobalThrottler issue is a hang, which is probably
> why
> > > it
> > > > > > >> slipped
> > > > > > >> > through the cracks. I went back 32 commits from head and it
> > was
> > > > > still
> > > > > > >> > stuck. 64 commits back it's good. Somewhere in between. Will
> > get
> > > > to
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > >> > offending commit shortly.
> > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > >> > On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 3:56 PM, Andrew Purtell <
> > > > > apurt...@apache.org>
> > > > > > >> > wrote:
> > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > >> >> Thanks. I'll take a look. They were passing for me before I
> > > went
> > > > > out
> > > > > > on
> > > > > > >> >> vacation.
> > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > >> >> On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 3:52 PM, Stack 
> > > wrote:
> > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > >> >>> Thanks.
> > > > > > >> >>>
> > > > > > >> >>> BTW, I noticed this morning that TestGlobalThrottler and
> > > > > > >> >>> TestEndToEndSplitTransaction
> > > > > > >> >>> fail locally for me and up on jenkins as part of hadoopqa
> > runs
> > > > and
> > > > > > on
> > > > > > >> >>> recent 1.4 runs.
> > > > > > >> >>>
> > > > > > >> >>> I tried to poke at why. They seem fine in 1.2, 1.3, and
> 2.0.
> > > Got
> > > > > > >> >>> distracted
> > > > > > >> >>> and got no further than this
> > > > > > >> >>>
> > > > > > >> >>> S
> > > > > > >> >>>
> > > > > > >> >>> On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 3:00 PM, Andrew Purtell <
> > > > > > apurt...@apache.org>
> > > > > > >> >>> wrote:
> > > > > > >> >>>
> > > > > > >> >>> > Ok, no problem.
> > > > > > >> >>> >
> > > > > > >> >>> > On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 2:59 PM, Stack <
> st...@duboce.net>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >> >>> >
> > > > > > >> >>> > > May I get HBASE-18233 into 1.4.0 Andrew? It is in 1.2
> > and
> > > > 1.3.
> > > > > > >> >>> Waiting on
> > > > > > >> >>> > > hadoopqa run. Would be good to have it all up and down
> > > > > branch-1.
> > > > > > >> >>> > > Thanks Sir,
> > > > > > >> >>> > > St.Ack
> > > > > > >> >>> > >
> > > > > > >> >>> > > On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 12:38 PM, Peter Somogyi <
> > > > > > >> >>> psomo...@cloudera.com>
> > > > > > >> >>> > > wrote:
> > > > > > >> >>> > >
> > > > > > >> >>> > > > HBASE-19188 was just resolved. :)
> > > > > > >> >>> > > >
> > > > > > >> >>> > > > On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 8:12 PM, Andrew Purtell <
> > > > > > >> >>> apurt...@apache.org>
> > > > > > >> >>> > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >> >>> > > >
> > > > > > >> >>> > > > > I come back to find HBASE-19188 is a blocker. :-/
> > > > > > >> >>> > > > > Need to resolve it
> > > > > > >> >>> > > > >
> > > > > > >> >>> > > > > On Sat, Nov 18, 2017 

Re: Release 1.4.0 update

[Guanghao Zhang]

Andrew, HBASE-18626 is a document fix for the incompatible change about the
replication TableCFs' config. Can we include it for 1.4? Thanks.

2017-12-01 9:19 GMT+08:00 Stack :

> I pushed HBASE-18233. Thanks for finding the issue and patience waiting on
> fix Andrew.
> St.Ack
>
> On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 5:04 PM, Andrew Purtell 
> wrote:
>
> > No problem, committing it now
> >
> > On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 4:54 PM, Sergey Soldatov <
> sergeysolda...@gmail.com
> > >
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Andrew,
> > >
> > > Can we include HBASE-19393 as well? Quite annoying issue and very
> simple
> > > fix.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Sergey
> > >
> > > On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 3:47 PM, Andrew Purtell 
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Not too late, no
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 3:31 PM, Stack  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Fix is up if it is not too late Andrew.
> > > > > St.Ack
> > > > >
> > > > > On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 1:58 PM, Stack  wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Andrew, your testing has turned up an issue in HBASE-18233. It is
> > > > present
> > > > > > in the 1.4 candidate patch and in 1.3. The failure is
> > intermittent. I
> > > > am
> > > > > > working on a fix but want to make sure I have it right. So, I
> > > withdraw
> > > > my
> > > > > > request that 1.4 include it.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > S
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 5:14 PM, Andrew Purtell <
> > apurt...@apache.org
> > > >
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >> TestGlobalThrottler is a problem stemming from the revert of
> > > > HBASE-9465
> > > > > >> ​ on branch-1.4. The test came in on HBASE-17314 so I'll also
> > revert
> > > > > that
> > > > > >> from branch-1.4. For more on this see HBASE-19381
> > > > > >> ​
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 5:00 PM, Andrew Purtell <
> > > apurt...@apache.org>
> > > > > >> wrote:
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> > The TestEndToEndSplitTransaction failure will be fixed by
> > > > HBASE-19379.
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > The TestGlobalThrottler issue is a hang, which is probably why
> > it
> > > > > >> slipped
> > > > > >> > through the cracks. I went back 32 commits from head and it
> was
> > > > still
> > > > > >> > stuck. 64 commits back it's good. Somewhere in between. Will
> get
> > > to
> > > > > the
> > > > > >> > offending commit shortly.
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 3:56 PM, Andrew Purtell <
> > > > apurt...@apache.org>
> > > > > >> > wrote:
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> >> Thanks. I'll take a look. They were passing for me before I
> > went
> > > > out
> > > > > on
> > > > > >> >> vacation.
> > > > > >> >>
> > > > > >> >>
> > > > > >> >> On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 3:52 PM, Stack 
> > wrote:
> > > > > >> >>
> > > > > >> >>> Thanks.
> > > > > >> >>>
> > > > > >> >>> BTW, I noticed this morning that TestGlobalThrottler and
> > > > > >> >>> TestEndToEndSplitTransaction
> > > > > >> >>> fail locally for me and up on jenkins as part of hadoopqa
> runs
> > > and
> > > > > on
> > > > > >> >>> recent 1.4 runs.
> > > > > >> >>>
> > > > > >> >>> I tried to poke at why. They seem fine in 1.2, 1.3, and 2.0.
> > Got
> > > > > >> >>> distracted
> > > > > >> >>> and got no further than this
> > > > > >> >>>
> > > > > >> >>> S
> > > > > >> >>>
> > > > > >> >>> On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 3:00 PM, Andrew Purtell <
> > > > > apurt...@apache.org>
> > > > > >> >>> wrote:
> > > > > >> >>>
> > > > > >> >>> > Ok, no problem.
> > > > > >> >>> >
> > > > > >> >>> > On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 2:59 PM, Stack 
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > >> >>> >
> > > > > >> >>> > > May I get HBASE-18233 into 1.4.0 Andrew? It is in 1.2
> and
> > > 1.3.
> > > > > >> >>> Waiting on
> > > > > >> >>> > > hadoopqa run. Would be good to have it all up and down
> > > > branch-1.
> > > > > >> >>> > > Thanks Sir,
> > > > > >> >>> > > St.Ack
> > > > > >> >>> > >
> > > > > >> >>> > > On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 12:38 PM, Peter Somogyi <
> > > > > >> >>> psomo...@cloudera.com>
> > > > > >> >>> > > wrote:
> > > > > >> >>> > >
> > > > > >> >>> > > > HBASE-19188 was just resolved. :)
> > > > > >> >>> > > >
> > > > > >> >>> > > > On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 8:12 PM, Andrew Purtell <
> > > > > >> >>> apurt...@apache.org>
> > > > > >> >>> > > > wrote:
> > > > > >> >>> > > >
> > > > > >> >>> > > > > I come back to find HBASE-19188 is a blocker. :-/
> > > > > >> >>> > > > > Need to resolve it
> > > > > >> >>> > > > >
> > > > > >> >>> > > > > On Sat, Nov 18, 2017 at 10:30 AM, Sean Busbey <
> > > > > >> bus...@apache.org
> > > > > >> >>> >
> > > > > >> >>> > > wrote:
> > > > > >> >>> > > > >
> > > > > >> >>> > > > > > thanks for all the work as RM on this Andrew!
> > > > > >> >>> > > > > >
> > > > > >> >>> > > > > > On Sat, Nov 18, 2017 at 12:19 PM, Andrew Purtell
> > > > > >> >>> > > > > >  wrote:
> > > > > >> >>> > > > > > > Everything is in and 

Re: Release 1.4.0 update

[Stack]

I pushed HBASE-18233. Thanks for finding the issue and patience waiting on
fix Andrew.
St.Ack

On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 5:04 PM, Andrew Purtell  wrote:

> No problem, committing it now
>
> On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 4:54 PM, Sergey Soldatov  >
> wrote:
>
> > Andrew,
> >
> > Can we include HBASE-19393 as well? Quite annoying issue and very simple
> > fix.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Sergey
> >
> > On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 3:47 PM, Andrew Purtell 
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Not too late, no
> > >
> > > On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 3:31 PM, Stack  wrote:
> > >
> > > > Fix is up if it is not too late Andrew.
> > > > St.Ack
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 1:58 PM, Stack  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Andrew, your testing has turned up an issue in HBASE-18233. It is
> > > present
> > > > > in the 1.4 candidate patch and in 1.3. The failure is
> intermittent. I
> > > am
> > > > > working on a fix but want to make sure I have it right. So, I
> > withdraw
> > > my
> > > > > request that 1.4 include it.
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > S
> > > > >
> > > > > On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 5:14 PM, Andrew Purtell <
> apurt...@apache.org
> > >
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >> TestGlobalThrottler is a problem stemming from the revert of
> > > HBASE-9465
> > > > >> ​ on branch-1.4. The test came in on HBASE-17314 so I'll also
> revert
> > > > that
> > > > >> from branch-1.4. For more on this see HBASE-19381
> > > > >> ​
> > > > >>
> > > > >> On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 5:00 PM, Andrew Purtell <
> > apurt...@apache.org>
> > > > >> wrote:
> > > > >>
> > > > >> > The TestEndToEndSplitTransaction failure will be fixed by
> > > HBASE-19379.
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > The TestGlobalThrottler issue is a hang, which is probably why
> it
> > > > >> slipped
> > > > >> > through the cracks. I went back 32 commits from head and it was
> > > still
> > > > >> > stuck. 64 commits back it's good. Somewhere in between. Will get
> > to
> > > > the
> > > > >> > offending commit shortly.
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 3:56 PM, Andrew Purtell <
> > > apurt...@apache.org>
> > > > >> > wrote:
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> >> Thanks. I'll take a look. They were passing for me before I
> went
> > > out
> > > > on
> > > > >> >> vacation.
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> >> On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 3:52 PM, Stack 
> wrote:
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> >>> Thanks.
> > > > >> >>>
> > > > >> >>> BTW, I noticed this morning that TestGlobalThrottler and
> > > > >> >>> TestEndToEndSplitTransaction
> > > > >> >>> fail locally for me and up on jenkins as part of hadoopqa runs
> > and
> > > > on
> > > > >> >>> recent 1.4 runs.
> > > > >> >>>
> > > > >> >>> I tried to poke at why. They seem fine in 1.2, 1.3, and 2.0.
> Got
> > > > >> >>> distracted
> > > > >> >>> and got no further than this
> > > > >> >>>
> > > > >> >>> S
> > > > >> >>>
> > > > >> >>> On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 3:00 PM, Andrew Purtell <
> > > > apurt...@apache.org>
> > > > >> >>> wrote:
> > > > >> >>>
> > > > >> >>> > Ok, no problem.
> > > > >> >>> >
> > > > >> >>> > On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 2:59 PM, Stack 
> > > wrote:
> > > > >> >>> >
> > > > >> >>> > > May I get HBASE-18233 into 1.4.0 Andrew? It is in 1.2 and
> > 1.3.
> > > > >> >>> Waiting on
> > > > >> >>> > > hadoopqa run. Would be good to have it all up and down
> > > branch-1.
> > > > >> >>> > > Thanks Sir,
> > > > >> >>> > > St.Ack
> > > > >> >>> > >
> > > > >> >>> > > On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 12:38 PM, Peter Somogyi <
> > > > >> >>> psomo...@cloudera.com>
> > > > >> >>> > > wrote:
> > > > >> >>> > >
> > > > >> >>> > > > HBASE-19188 was just resolved. :)
> > > > >> >>> > > >
> > > > >> >>> > > > On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 8:12 PM, Andrew Purtell <
> > > > >> >>> apurt...@apache.org>
> > > > >> >>> > > > wrote:
> > > > >> >>> > > >
> > > > >> >>> > > > > I come back to find HBASE-19188 is a blocker. :-/
> > > > >> >>> > > > > Need to resolve it
> > > > >> >>> > > > >
> > > > >> >>> > > > > On Sat, Nov 18, 2017 at 10:30 AM, Sean Busbey <
> > > > >> bus...@apache.org
> > > > >> >>> >
> > > > >> >>> > > wrote:
> > > > >> >>> > > > >
> > > > >> >>> > > > > > thanks for all the work as RM on this Andrew!
> > > > >> >>> > > > > >
> > > > >> >>> > > > > > On Sat, Nov 18, 2017 at 12:19 PM, Andrew Purtell
> > > > >> >>> > > > > >  wrote:
> > > > >> >>> > > > > > > Everything is in and ready to go. I'm out next
> week
> > > for
> > > > >> the
> > > > >> >>> > > > > Thanksgiving
> > > > >> >>> > > > > > > holiday, but will be back first week in December.
> > > > >> >>> > > > > > >
> > > > >> >>> > > > > > > Here is what I anticipate:
> > > > >> >>> > > > > > >
> > > > >> >>> > > > > > >- December 4
> > > > >> >>> > > > > > >   - 1.4.0 RC0 binaries will be available.
> > > > >> >>> > > > > > >   - Voting begins.
> > > > >> >>> > > > > > >   - Preflight checks 

Re: Release 1.4.0 update

[Andrew Purtell]

No problem, committing it now

On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 4:54 PM, Sergey Soldatov 
wrote:

> Andrew,
>
> Can we include HBASE-19393 as well? Quite annoying issue and very simple
> fix.
>
> Thanks,
> Sergey
>
> On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 3:47 PM, Andrew Purtell 
> wrote:
>
> > Not too late, no
> >
> > On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 3:31 PM, Stack  wrote:
> >
> > > Fix is up if it is not too late Andrew.
> > > St.Ack
> > >
> > > On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 1:58 PM, Stack  wrote:
> > >
> > > > Andrew, your testing has turned up an issue in HBASE-18233. It is
> > present
> > > > in the 1.4 candidate patch and in 1.3. The failure is intermittent. I
> > am
> > > > working on a fix but want to make sure I have it right. So, I
> withdraw
> > my
> > > > request that 1.4 include it.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > S
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 5:14 PM, Andrew Purtell  >
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> TestGlobalThrottler is a problem stemming from the revert of
> > HBASE-9465
> > > >> ​ on branch-1.4. The test came in on HBASE-17314 so I'll also revert
> > > that
> > > >> from branch-1.4. For more on this see HBASE-19381
> > > >> ​
> > > >>
> > > >> On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 5:00 PM, Andrew Purtell <
> apurt...@apache.org>
> > > >> wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> > The TestEndToEndSplitTransaction failure will be fixed by
> > HBASE-19379.
> > > >> >
> > > >> > The TestGlobalThrottler issue is a hang, which is probably why it
> > > >> slipped
> > > >> > through the cracks. I went back 32 commits from head and it was
> > still
> > > >> > stuck. 64 commits back it's good. Somewhere in between. Will get
> to
> > > the
> > > >> > offending commit shortly.
> > > >> >
> > > >> >
> > > >> > On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 3:56 PM, Andrew Purtell <
> > apurt...@apache.org>
> > > >> > wrote:
> > > >> >
> > > >> >> Thanks. I'll take a look. They were passing for me before I went
> > out
> > > on
> > > >> >> vacation.
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 3:52 PM, Stack  wrote:
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >>> Thanks.
> > > >> >>>
> > > >> >>> BTW, I noticed this morning that TestGlobalThrottler and
> > > >> >>> TestEndToEndSplitTransaction
> > > >> >>> fail locally for me and up on jenkins as part of hadoopqa runs
> and
> > > on
> > > >> >>> recent 1.4 runs.
> > > >> >>>
> > > >> >>> I tried to poke at why. They seem fine in 1.2, 1.3, and 2.0. Got
> > > >> >>> distracted
> > > >> >>> and got no further than this
> > > >> >>>
> > > >> >>> S
> > > >> >>>
> > > >> >>> On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 3:00 PM, Andrew Purtell <
> > > apurt...@apache.org>
> > > >> >>> wrote:
> > > >> >>>
> > > >> >>> > Ok, no problem.
> > > >> >>> >
> > > >> >>> > On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 2:59 PM, Stack 
> > wrote:
> > > >> >>> >
> > > >> >>> > > May I get HBASE-18233 into 1.4.0 Andrew? It is in 1.2 and
> 1.3.
> > > >> >>> Waiting on
> > > >> >>> > > hadoopqa run. Would be good to have it all up and down
> > branch-1.
> > > >> >>> > > Thanks Sir,
> > > >> >>> > > St.Ack
> > > >> >>> > >
> > > >> >>> > > On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 12:38 PM, Peter Somogyi <
> > > >> >>> psomo...@cloudera.com>
> > > >> >>> > > wrote:
> > > >> >>> > >
> > > >> >>> > > > HBASE-19188 was just resolved. :)
> > > >> >>> > > >
> > > >> >>> > > > On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 8:12 PM, Andrew Purtell <
> > > >> >>> apurt...@apache.org>
> > > >> >>> > > > wrote:
> > > >> >>> > > >
> > > >> >>> > > > > I come back to find HBASE-19188 is a blocker. :-/
> > > >> >>> > > > > Need to resolve it
> > > >> >>> > > > >
> > > >> >>> > > > > On Sat, Nov 18, 2017 at 10:30 AM, Sean Busbey <
> > > >> bus...@apache.org
> > > >> >>> >
> > > >> >>> > > wrote:
> > > >> >>> > > > >
> > > >> >>> > > > > > thanks for all the work as RM on this Andrew!
> > > >> >>> > > > > >
> > > >> >>> > > > > > On Sat, Nov 18, 2017 at 12:19 PM, Andrew Purtell
> > > >> >>> > > > > >  wrote:
> > > >> >>> > > > > > > Everything is in and ready to go. I'm out next week
> > for
> > > >> the
> > > >> >>> > > > > Thanksgiving
> > > >> >>> > > > > > > holiday, but will be back first week in December.
> > > >> >>> > > > > > >
> > > >> >>> > > > > > > Here is what I anticipate:
> > > >> >>> > > > > > >
> > > >> >>> > > > > > >- December 4
> > > >> >>> > > > > > >   - 1.4.0 RC0 binaries will be available.
> > > >> >>> > > > > > >   - Voting begins.
> > > >> >>> > > > > > >   - Preflight checks will include RAT check,
> > release
> > > >> >>> audits,
> > > >> >>> > > and
> > > >> >>> > > > 25
> > > >> >>> > > > > > >   iterations of the unit test suite.
> > > >> >>> > > > > > >- December 5 - 8
> > > >> >>> > > > > > >   - 24 hours ITBLL
> > > >> >>> > > > > > >   - PE and YCSB on cluster perf comparison with
> > 1.2
> > > >> >>> > > > > > >   - PE and YCSB single server profiling with
> JFR,
> > > >> >>> comparison
> > > >> >>> > > with
> > > >> 

Re: Release 1.4.0 update

[Stack]

Fix is up if it is not too late Andrew.
St.Ack

On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 1:58 PM, Stack  wrote:

> Andrew, your testing has turned up an issue in HBASE-18233. It is present
> in the 1.4 candidate patch and in 1.3. The failure is intermittent. I am
> working on a fix but want to make sure I have it right. So, I withdraw my
> request that 1.4 include it.
>
> Thanks,
> S
>
> On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 5:14 PM, Andrew Purtell 
> wrote:
>
>> TestGlobalThrottler is a problem stemming from the revert of HBASE-9465
>> ​ on branch-1.4. The test came in on HBASE-17314 so I'll also revert that
>> from branch-1.4. For more on this see HBASE-19381
>> ​
>>
>> On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 5:00 PM, Andrew Purtell 
>> wrote:
>>
>> > The TestEndToEndSplitTransaction failure will be fixed by HBASE-19379.
>> >
>> > The TestGlobalThrottler issue is a hang, which is probably why it
>> slipped
>> > through the cracks. I went back 32 commits from head and it was still
>> > stuck. 64 commits back it's good. Somewhere in between. Will get to the
>> > offending commit shortly.
>> >
>> >
>> > On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 3:56 PM, Andrew Purtell 
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> >> Thanks. I'll take a look. They were passing for me before I went out on
>> >> vacation.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 3:52 PM, Stack  wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> Thanks.
>> >>>
>> >>> BTW, I noticed this morning that TestGlobalThrottler and
>> >>> TestEndToEndSplitTransaction
>> >>> fail locally for me and up on jenkins as part of hadoopqa runs and on
>> >>> recent 1.4 runs.
>> >>>
>> >>> I tried to poke at why. They seem fine in 1.2, 1.3, and 2.0. Got
>> >>> distracted
>> >>> and got no further than this
>> >>>
>> >>> S
>> >>>
>> >>> On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 3:00 PM, Andrew Purtell 
>> >>> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> > Ok, no problem.
>> >>> >
>> >>> > On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 2:59 PM, Stack  wrote:
>> >>> >
>> >>> > > May I get HBASE-18233 into 1.4.0 Andrew? It is in 1.2 and 1.3.
>> >>> Waiting on
>> >>> > > hadoopqa run. Would be good to have it all up and down branch-1.
>> >>> > > Thanks Sir,
>> >>> > > St.Ack
>> >>> > >
>> >>> > > On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 12:38 PM, Peter Somogyi <
>> >>> psomo...@cloudera.com>
>> >>> > > wrote:
>> >>> > >
>> >>> > > > HBASE-19188 was just resolved. :)
>> >>> > > >
>> >>> > > > On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 8:12 PM, Andrew Purtell <
>> >>> apurt...@apache.org>
>> >>> > > > wrote:
>> >>> > > >
>> >>> > > > > I come back to find HBASE-19188 is a blocker. :-/
>> >>> > > > > Need to resolve it
>> >>> > > > >
>> >>> > > > > On Sat, Nov 18, 2017 at 10:30 AM, Sean Busbey <
>> bus...@apache.org
>> >>> >
>> >>> > > wrote:
>> >>> > > > >
>> >>> > > > > > thanks for all the work as RM on this Andrew!
>> >>> > > > > >
>> >>> > > > > > On Sat, Nov 18, 2017 at 12:19 PM, Andrew Purtell
>> >>> > > > > >  wrote:
>> >>> > > > > > > Everything is in and ready to go. I'm out next week for
>> the
>> >>> > > > > Thanksgiving
>> >>> > > > > > > holiday, but will be back first week in December.
>> >>> > > > > > >
>> >>> > > > > > > Here is what I anticipate:
>> >>> > > > > > >
>> >>> > > > > > >- December 4
>> >>> > > > > > >   - 1.4.0 RC0 binaries will be available.
>> >>> > > > > > >   - Voting begins.
>> >>> > > > > > >   - Preflight checks will include RAT check, release
>> >>> audits,
>> >>> > > and
>> >>> > > > 25
>> >>> > > > > > >   iterations of the unit test suite.
>> >>> > > > > > >- December 5 - 8
>> >>> > > > > > >   - 24 hours ITBLL
>> >>> > > > > > >   - PE and YCSB on cluster perf comparison with 1.2
>> >>> > > > > > >   - PE and YCSB single server profiling with JFR,
>> >>> comparison
>> >>> > > with
>> >>> > > > > 1.2
>> >>> > > > > > >- December 11
>> >>> > > > > > >   - Voting concludes
>> >>> > > > > > >   - Release, or RC1 depending on testing outcome
>> >>> > > > > > >   - December 18
>> >>> > > > > > >   - RC1 voting concludes and release, if we need a RC1
>> >>> > > > > > >
>> >>> > > > > > >
>> >>> > > > > > > From now until the 1.4.0 release, please refrain from
>> >>> committing
>> >>> > > > > > > potentially destabilizing changes or changes to public
>> APIs
>> >>> to
>> >>> > > > > > branch-1.4.
>> >>> > > > > > >
>> >>> > > > > > > On Mon, Nov 13, 2017 at 10:33 AM, Andrew Purtell <
>> >>> > > > > > andrew.purt...@gmail.com>
>> >>> > > > > > > wrote:
>> >>> > > > > > >
>> >>> > > > > > >> On HBASE-19232 we discuss testing the shaded client using
>> >>> YCSB,
>> >>> > so
>> >>> > > > > I'll
>> >>> > > > > > >> use it to sanity check the shaded client as well as
>> >>> complete a
>> >>> > > perf
>> >>> > > > > > >> comparison with 1.2.
>> >>> > > > > > >>
>> >>> > > > > > >>
>> >>> > > > > > >>
>> >>> > > > > > >> On Sat, Nov 11, 2017 at 9:53 AM, Andrew Purtell <
>> >>> > > > > > andrew.purt...@gmail.com>
>> >>> > > > > > >> wrote:

Re: Release 1.4.0 update

[Andrew Purtell]

TestGlobalThrottler is a problem stemming from the revert of HBASE-9465
​ on branch-1.4. The test came in on HBASE-17314 so I'll also revert that
from branch-1.4. For more on this see HBASE-19381
​

On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 5:00 PM, Andrew Purtell  wrote:

> The TestEndToEndSplitTransaction failure will be fixed by HBASE-19379.
>
> The TestGlobalThrottler issue is a hang, which is probably why it slipped
> through the cracks. I went back 32 commits from head and it was still
> stuck. 64 commits back it's good. Somewhere in between. Will get to the
> offending commit shortly.
>
>
> On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 3:56 PM, Andrew Purtell 
> wrote:
>
>> Thanks. I'll take a look. They were passing for me before I went out on
>> vacation.
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 3:52 PM, Stack  wrote:
>>
>>> Thanks.
>>>
>>> BTW, I noticed this morning that TestGlobalThrottler and
>>> TestEndToEndSplitTransaction
>>> fail locally for me and up on jenkins as part of hadoopqa runs and on
>>> recent 1.4 runs.
>>>
>>> I tried to poke at why. They seem fine in 1.2, 1.3, and 2.0. Got
>>> distracted
>>> and got no further than this
>>>
>>> S
>>>
>>> On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 3:00 PM, Andrew Purtell 
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> > Ok, no problem.
>>> >
>>> > On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 2:59 PM, Stack  wrote:
>>> >
>>> > > May I get HBASE-18233 into 1.4.0 Andrew? It is in 1.2 and 1.3.
>>> Waiting on
>>> > > hadoopqa run. Would be good to have it all up and down branch-1.
>>> > > Thanks Sir,
>>> > > St.Ack
>>> > >
>>> > > On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 12:38 PM, Peter Somogyi <
>>> psomo...@cloudera.com>
>>> > > wrote:
>>> > >
>>> > > > HBASE-19188 was just resolved. :)
>>> > > >
>>> > > > On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 8:12 PM, Andrew Purtell <
>>> apurt...@apache.org>
>>> > > > wrote:
>>> > > >
>>> > > > > I come back to find HBASE-19188 is a blocker. :-/
>>> > > > > Need to resolve it
>>> > > > >
>>> > > > > On Sat, Nov 18, 2017 at 10:30 AM, Sean Busbey >> >
>>> > > wrote:
>>> > > > >
>>> > > > > > thanks for all the work as RM on this Andrew!
>>> > > > > >
>>> > > > > > On Sat, Nov 18, 2017 at 12:19 PM, Andrew Purtell
>>> > > > > >  wrote:
>>> > > > > > > Everything is in and ready to go. I'm out next week for the
>>> > > > > Thanksgiving
>>> > > > > > > holiday, but will be back first week in December.
>>> > > > > > >
>>> > > > > > > Here is what I anticipate:
>>> > > > > > >
>>> > > > > > >- December 4
>>> > > > > > >   - 1.4.0 RC0 binaries will be available.
>>> > > > > > >   - Voting begins.
>>> > > > > > >   - Preflight checks will include RAT check, release
>>> audits,
>>> > > and
>>> > > > 25
>>> > > > > > >   iterations of the unit test suite.
>>> > > > > > >- December 5 - 8
>>> > > > > > >   - 24 hours ITBLL
>>> > > > > > >   - PE and YCSB on cluster perf comparison with 1.2
>>> > > > > > >   - PE and YCSB single server profiling with JFR,
>>> comparison
>>> > > with
>>> > > > > 1.2
>>> > > > > > >- December 11
>>> > > > > > >   - Voting concludes
>>> > > > > > >   - Release, or RC1 depending on testing outcome
>>> > > > > > >   - December 18
>>> > > > > > >   - RC1 voting concludes and release, if we need a RC1
>>> > > > > > >
>>> > > > > > >
>>> > > > > > > From now until the 1.4.0 release, please refrain from
>>> committing
>>> > > > > > > potentially destabilizing changes or changes to public APIs
>>> to
>>> > > > > > branch-1.4.
>>> > > > > > >
>>> > > > > > > On Mon, Nov 13, 2017 at 10:33 AM, Andrew Purtell <
>>> > > > > > andrew.purt...@gmail.com>
>>> > > > > > > wrote:
>>> > > > > > >
>>> > > > > > >> On HBASE-19232 we discuss testing the shaded client using
>>> YCSB,
>>> > so
>>> > > > > I'll
>>> > > > > > >> use it to sanity check the shaded client as well as
>>> complete a
>>> > > perf
>>> > > > > > >> comparison with 1.2.
>>> > > > > > >>
>>> > > > > > >>
>>> > > > > > >>
>>> > > > > > >> On Sat, Nov 11, 2017 at 9:53 AM, Andrew Purtell <
>>> > > > > > andrew.purt...@gmail.com>
>>> > > > > > >> wrote:
>>> > > > > > >>
>>> > > > > > >>> I'll do a PE comparison between 1.4.0 and 1.3 and/or 1.2.
>>> Maybe
>>> > > > YSCB
>>> > > > > > too
>>> > > > > > >>> if I have time. Good idea, thanks.
>>> > > > > > >>>
>>> > > > > > >>>
>>> > > > > > >>> > On Nov 11, 2017, at 5:05 AM, Yu Li 
>>> wrote:
>>> > > > > > >>> >
>>> > > > > > >>> > Great to know, really good progress!
>>> > > > > > >>> >
>>> > > > > > >>> > It seems we don't do performance comparison with current
>>> > stable
>>> > > > > > release
>>> > > > > > >>> > when releasing the first RC of a new branch, but should
>>> we do
>>> > > to
>>> > > > > > avoid
>>> > > > > > >>> > issues like HBASE-14460 (write performance regression
>>> from
>>> > 0.98
>>> > > > to
>>> > > > > > 1.1)?
>>> > > > > > >>> > This is a must-have for us to decide new version for
>>> product
>>> > > 

Re: Release 1.4.0 update

[Andrew Purtell]

The TestEndToEndSplitTransaction failure will be fixed by HBASE-19379.

The TestGlobalThrottler issue is a hang, which is probably why it slipped
through the cracks. I went back 32 commits from head and it was still
stuck. 64 commits back it's good. Somewhere in between. Will get to the
offending commit shortly.


On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 3:56 PM, Andrew Purtell  wrote:

> Thanks. I'll take a look. They were passing for me before I went out on
> vacation.
>
>
> On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 3:52 PM, Stack  wrote:
>
>> Thanks.
>>
>> BTW, I noticed this morning that TestGlobalThrottler and
>> TestEndToEndSplitTransaction
>> fail locally for me and up on jenkins as part of hadoopqa runs and on
>> recent 1.4 runs.
>>
>> I tried to poke at why. They seem fine in 1.2, 1.3, and 2.0. Got
>> distracted
>> and got no further than this
>>
>> S
>>
>> On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 3:00 PM, Andrew Purtell 
>> wrote:
>>
>> > Ok, no problem.
>> >
>> > On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 2:59 PM, Stack  wrote:
>> >
>> > > May I get HBASE-18233 into 1.4.0 Andrew? It is in 1.2 and 1.3.
>> Waiting on
>> > > hadoopqa run. Would be good to have it all up and down branch-1.
>> > > Thanks Sir,
>> > > St.Ack
>> > >
>> > > On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 12:38 PM, Peter Somogyi <
>> psomo...@cloudera.com>
>> > > wrote:
>> > >
>> > > > HBASE-19188 was just resolved. :)
>> > > >
>> > > > On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 8:12 PM, Andrew Purtell <
>> apurt...@apache.org>
>> > > > wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > > I come back to find HBASE-19188 is a blocker. :-/
>> > > > > Need to resolve it
>> > > > >
>> > > > > On Sat, Nov 18, 2017 at 10:30 AM, Sean Busbey 
>> > > wrote:
>> > > > >
>> > > > > > thanks for all the work as RM on this Andrew!
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > On Sat, Nov 18, 2017 at 12:19 PM, Andrew Purtell
>> > > > > >  wrote:
>> > > > > > > Everything is in and ready to go. I'm out next week for the
>> > > > > Thanksgiving
>> > > > > > > holiday, but will be back first week in December.
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > Here is what I anticipate:
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >- December 4
>> > > > > > >   - 1.4.0 RC0 binaries will be available.
>> > > > > > >   - Voting begins.
>> > > > > > >   - Preflight checks will include RAT check, release
>> audits,
>> > > and
>> > > > 25
>> > > > > > >   iterations of the unit test suite.
>> > > > > > >- December 5 - 8
>> > > > > > >   - 24 hours ITBLL
>> > > > > > >   - PE and YCSB on cluster perf comparison with 1.2
>> > > > > > >   - PE and YCSB single server profiling with JFR,
>> comparison
>> > > with
>> > > > > 1.2
>> > > > > > >- December 11
>> > > > > > >   - Voting concludes
>> > > > > > >   - Release, or RC1 depending on testing outcome
>> > > > > > >   - December 18
>> > > > > > >   - RC1 voting concludes and release, if we need a RC1
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > From now until the 1.4.0 release, please refrain from
>> committing
>> > > > > > > potentially destabilizing changes or changes to public APIs to
>> > > > > > branch-1.4.
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > On Mon, Nov 13, 2017 at 10:33 AM, Andrew Purtell <
>> > > > > > andrew.purt...@gmail.com>
>> > > > > > > wrote:
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> On HBASE-19232 we discuss testing the shaded client using
>> YCSB,
>> > so
>> > > > > I'll
>> > > > > > >> use it to sanity check the shaded client as well as complete
>> a
>> > > perf
>> > > > > > >> comparison with 1.2.
>> > > > > > >>
>> > > > > > >>
>> > > > > > >>
>> > > > > > >> On Sat, Nov 11, 2017 at 9:53 AM, Andrew Purtell <
>> > > > > > andrew.purt...@gmail.com>
>> > > > > > >> wrote:
>> > > > > > >>
>> > > > > > >>> I'll do a PE comparison between 1.4.0 and 1.3 and/or 1.2.
>> Maybe
>> > > > YSCB
>> > > > > > too
>> > > > > > >>> if I have time. Good idea, thanks.
>> > > > > > >>>
>> > > > > > >>>
>> > > > > > >>> > On Nov 11, 2017, at 5:05 AM, Yu Li 
>> wrote:
>> > > > > > >>> >
>> > > > > > >>> > Great to know, really good progress!
>> > > > > > >>> >
>> > > > > > >>> > It seems we don't do performance comparison with current
>> > stable
>> > > > > > release
>> > > > > > >>> > when releasing the first RC of a new branch, but should
>> we do
>> > > to
>> > > > > > avoid
>> > > > > > >>> > issues like HBASE-14460 (write performance regression from
>> > 0.98
>> > > > to
>> > > > > > 1.1)?
>> > > > > > >>> > This is a must-have for us to decide new version for
>> product
>> > > env
>> > > > > > here,
>> > > > > > >>> and
>> > > > > > >>> > I wonder whether this applies for most users (please
>> forgive
>> > my
>> > > > > > >>> ignorance
>> > > > > > >>> > if there's any existing policy for this). Thanks.
>> > > > > > >>> >
>> > > > > > >>> > bq. Back when we first discussed branching for 1.4 Yu Li
>> > asked
>> > > > for
>> > > > > > >>> this...
>> > > > > > >>> > Thanks for remembering this and keeping the 

Re: Release 1.4.0 update

[Andrew Purtell]

Thanks. I'll take a look. They were passing for me before I went out on
vacation.


On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 3:52 PM, Stack  wrote:

> Thanks.
>
> BTW, I noticed this morning that TestGlobalThrottler and
> TestEndToEndSplitTransaction
> fail locally for me and up on jenkins as part of hadoopqa runs and on
> recent 1.4 runs.
>
> I tried to poke at why. They seem fine in 1.2, 1.3, and 2.0. Got distracted
> and got no further than this
>
> S
>
> On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 3:00 PM, Andrew Purtell 
> wrote:
>
> > Ok, no problem.
> >
> > On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 2:59 PM, Stack  wrote:
> >
> > > May I get HBASE-18233 into 1.4.0 Andrew? It is in 1.2 and 1.3. Waiting
> on
> > > hadoopqa run. Would be good to have it all up and down branch-1.
> > > Thanks Sir,
> > > St.Ack
> > >
> > > On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 12:38 PM, Peter Somogyi  >
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > HBASE-19188 was just resolved. :)
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 8:12 PM, Andrew Purtell  >
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > I come back to find HBASE-19188 is a blocker. :-/
> > > > > Need to resolve it
> > > > >
> > > > > On Sat, Nov 18, 2017 at 10:30 AM, Sean Busbey 
> > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > thanks for all the work as RM on this Andrew!
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Sat, Nov 18, 2017 at 12:19 PM, Andrew Purtell
> > > > > >  wrote:
> > > > > > > Everything is in and ready to go. I'm out next week for the
> > > > > Thanksgiving
> > > > > > > holiday, but will be back first week in December.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Here is what I anticipate:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >- December 4
> > > > > > >   - 1.4.0 RC0 binaries will be available.
> > > > > > >   - Voting begins.
> > > > > > >   - Preflight checks will include RAT check, release
> audits,
> > > and
> > > > 25
> > > > > > >   iterations of the unit test suite.
> > > > > > >- December 5 - 8
> > > > > > >   - 24 hours ITBLL
> > > > > > >   - PE and YCSB on cluster perf comparison with 1.2
> > > > > > >   - PE and YCSB single server profiling with JFR,
> comparison
> > > with
> > > > > 1.2
> > > > > > >- December 11
> > > > > > >   - Voting concludes
> > > > > > >   - Release, or RC1 depending on testing outcome
> > > > > > >   - December 18
> > > > > > >   - RC1 voting concludes and release, if we need a RC1
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > From now until the 1.4.0 release, please refrain from
> committing
> > > > > > > potentially destabilizing changes or changes to public APIs to
> > > > > > branch-1.4.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Mon, Nov 13, 2017 at 10:33 AM, Andrew Purtell <
> > > > > > andrew.purt...@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> On HBASE-19232 we discuss testing the shaded client using
> YCSB,
> > so
> > > > > I'll
> > > > > > >> use it to sanity check the shaded client as well as complete a
> > > perf
> > > > > > >> comparison with 1.2.
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> On Sat, Nov 11, 2017 at 9:53 AM, Andrew Purtell <
> > > > > > andrew.purt...@gmail.com>
> > > > > > >> wrote:
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>> I'll do a PE comparison between 1.4.0 and 1.3 and/or 1.2.
> Maybe
> > > > YSCB
> > > > > > too
> > > > > > >>> if I have time. Good idea, thanks.
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>> > On Nov 11, 2017, at 5:05 AM, Yu Li 
> wrote:
> > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > >>> > Great to know, really good progress!
> > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > >>> > It seems we don't do performance comparison with current
> > stable
> > > > > > release
> > > > > > >>> > when releasing the first RC of a new branch, but should we
> do
> > > to
> > > > > > avoid
> > > > > > >>> > issues like HBASE-14460 (write performance regression from
> > 0.98
> > > > to
> > > > > > 1.1)?
> > > > > > >>> > This is a must-have for us to decide new version for
> product
> > > env
> > > > > > here,
> > > > > > >>> and
> > > > > > >>> > I wonder whether this applies for most users (please
> forgive
> > my
> > > > > > >>> ignorance
> > > > > > >>> > if there's any existing policy for this). Thanks.
> > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > >>> > bq. Back when we first discussed branching for 1.4 Yu Li
> > asked
> > > > for
> > > > > > >>> this...
> > > > > > >>> > Thanks for remembering this and keeping the promise boss
> > > (smile).
> > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > >>> > Best Regards,
> > > > > > >>> > Yu
> > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > >>> >> On 11 November 2017 at 03:30, Andrew Purtell <
> > > > apurt...@apache.org
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >>> wrote:
> > > > > > >>> >>
> > > > > > >>> >> The march to 1.4.0 is progressing.
> > > > > > >>> >>
> > > > > > >>> >> I've run the unit test suite on a C4 class AWS instance 25
> > > times
> > > > > and
> > > > > > >>> there
> > > > > > >>> >> are no failures. This is ongoing. I'm aiming for 100 runs.
> > 

Re: Release 1.4.0 update

[Stack]

May I get HBASE-18233 into 1.4.0 Andrew? It is in 1.2 and 1.3. Waiting on
hadoopqa run. Would be good to have it all up and down branch-1.
Thanks Sir,
St.Ack

On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 12:38 PM, Peter Somogyi 
wrote:

> HBASE-19188 was just resolved. :)
>
> On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 8:12 PM, Andrew Purtell 
> wrote:
>
> > I come back to find HBASE-19188 is a blocker. :-/
> > Need to resolve it
> >
> > On Sat, Nov 18, 2017 at 10:30 AM, Sean Busbey  wrote:
> >
> > > thanks for all the work as RM on this Andrew!
> > >
> > > On Sat, Nov 18, 2017 at 12:19 PM, Andrew Purtell
> > >  wrote:
> > > > Everything is in and ready to go. I'm out next week for the
> > Thanksgiving
> > > > holiday, but will be back first week in December.
> > > >
> > > > Here is what I anticipate:
> > > >
> > > >- December 4
> > > >   - 1.4.0 RC0 binaries will be available.
> > > >   - Voting begins.
> > > >   - Preflight checks will include RAT check, release audits, and
> 25
> > > >   iterations of the unit test suite.
> > > >- December 5 - 8
> > > >   - 24 hours ITBLL
> > > >   - PE and YCSB on cluster perf comparison with 1.2
> > > >   - PE and YCSB single server profiling with JFR, comparison with
> > 1.2
> > > >- December 11
> > > >   - Voting concludes
> > > >   - Release, or RC1 depending on testing outcome
> > > >   - December 18
> > > >   - RC1 voting concludes and release, if we need a RC1
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > From now until the 1.4.0 release, please refrain from committing
> > > > potentially destabilizing changes or changes to public APIs to
> > > branch-1.4.
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, Nov 13, 2017 at 10:33 AM, Andrew Purtell <
> > > andrew.purt...@gmail.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> On HBASE-19232 we discuss testing the shaded client using YCSB, so
> > I'll
> > > >> use it to sanity check the shaded client as well as complete a perf
> > > >> comparison with 1.2.
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> On Sat, Nov 11, 2017 at 9:53 AM, Andrew Purtell <
> > > andrew.purt...@gmail.com>
> > > >> wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >>> I'll do a PE comparison between 1.4.0 and 1.3 and/or 1.2. Maybe
> YSCB
> > > too
> > > >>> if I have time. Good idea, thanks.
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>> > On Nov 11, 2017, at 5:05 AM, Yu Li  wrote:
> > > >>> >
> > > >>> > Great to know, really good progress!
> > > >>> >
> > > >>> > It seems we don't do performance comparison with current stable
> > > release
> > > >>> > when releasing the first RC of a new branch, but should we do to
> > > avoid
> > > >>> > issues like HBASE-14460 (write performance regression from 0.98
> to
> > > 1.1)?
> > > >>> > This is a must-have for us to decide new version for product env
> > > here,
> > > >>> and
> > > >>> > I wonder whether this applies for most users (please forgive my
> > > >>> ignorance
> > > >>> > if there's any existing policy for this). Thanks.
> > > >>> >
> > > >>> > bq. Back when we first discussed branching for 1.4 Yu Li asked
> for
> > > >>> this...
> > > >>> > Thanks for remembering this and keeping the promise boss (smile).
> > > >>> >
> > > >>> > Best Regards,
> > > >>> > Yu
> > > >>> >
> > > >>> >> On 11 November 2017 at 03:30, Andrew Purtell <
> apurt...@apache.org
> > >
> > > >>> wrote:
> > > >>> >>
> > > >>> >> The march to 1.4.0 is progressing.
> > > >>> >>
> > > >>> >> I've run the unit test suite on a C4 class AWS instance 25 times
> > and
> > > >>> there
> > > >>> >> are no failures. This is ongoing. I'm aiming for 100 runs.
> > > >>> >>
> > > >>> >> Fix versions are now set up for constructing a reasonable change
> > > log.
> > > >>> >>
> > > >>> >> With HBASE-19232 applied a build with release audits enabled
> will
> > > pass.
> > > >>> >>
> > > >>> >> I backported error-prone support yesterday and will now look at
> > > >>> checkstyle
> > > >>> >> and error-prone analyses for important issues.
> > > >>> >>
> > > >>> >> I'll probably do HBASE-19238 before 1.4.0 goes out so that neat
> > > utility
> > > >>> >> will be available.
> > > >>> >>
> > > >>> >> Back when we first discussed branching for 1.4 Yu Li asked for
> > this:
> > > >>> >>
> > > >>> >>> One naive question here: from the book
> > > >>> >>>  we will
> add
> > > >>> >>> functionality (in a backwards-compatible manner) in minor
> > versions,
> > > >>> but
> > > >>> >> it
> > > >>> >>> seems we don't have any one-line description on the differences
> > > (what
> > > >>> >>> main functionalities have been added) between
> > > branch-1.1/1.2/1.3/1.4
> > > >>> so
> > > >>> >>> user could better decide which version to choose/upgrade.
> Should
> > we
> > > >>> >>> add some explicit document on this? Or release note of the
> first
> > > >>> release
> > > >>> >>> for each branch is enough? Thanks.
> > > >>> >>
> > > >>> >> and I still agree to do it. I'll write it up while the RC 

Re: Release 1.4.0 update

[Andrew Purtell]

I come back to find HBASE-19188 is a blocker. :-/
Need to resolve it

On Sat, Nov 18, 2017 at 10:30 AM, Sean Busbey  wrote:

> thanks for all the work as RM on this Andrew!
>
> On Sat, Nov 18, 2017 at 12:19 PM, Andrew Purtell
>  wrote:
> > Everything is in and ready to go. I'm out next week for the Thanksgiving
> > holiday, but will be back first week in December.
> >
> > Here is what I anticipate:
> >
> >- December 4
> >   - 1.4.0 RC0 binaries will be available.
> >   - Voting begins.
> >   - Preflight checks will include RAT check, release audits, and 25
> >   iterations of the unit test suite.
> >- December 5 - 8
> >   - 24 hours ITBLL
> >   - PE and YCSB on cluster perf comparison with 1.2
> >   - PE and YCSB single server profiling with JFR, comparison with 1.2
> >- December 11
> >   - Voting concludes
> >   - Release, or RC1 depending on testing outcome
> >   - December 18
> >   - RC1 voting concludes and release, if we need a RC1
> >
> >
> > From now until the 1.4.0 release, please refrain from committing
> > potentially destabilizing changes or changes to public APIs to
> branch-1.4.
> >
> > On Mon, Nov 13, 2017 at 10:33 AM, Andrew Purtell <
> andrew.purt...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> On HBASE-19232 we discuss testing the shaded client using YCSB, so I'll
> >> use it to sanity check the shaded client as well as complete a perf
> >> comparison with 1.2.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On Sat, Nov 11, 2017 at 9:53 AM, Andrew Purtell <
> andrew.purt...@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> I'll do a PE comparison between 1.4.0 and 1.3 and/or 1.2. Maybe YSCB
> too
> >>> if I have time. Good idea, thanks.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> > On Nov 11, 2017, at 5:05 AM, Yu Li  wrote:
> >>> >
> >>> > Great to know, really good progress!
> >>> >
> >>> > It seems we don't do performance comparison with current stable
> release
> >>> > when releasing the first RC of a new branch, but should we do to
> avoid
> >>> > issues like HBASE-14460 (write performance regression from 0.98 to
> 1.1)?
> >>> > This is a must-have for us to decide new version for product env
> here,
> >>> and
> >>> > I wonder whether this applies for most users (please forgive my
> >>> ignorance
> >>> > if there's any existing policy for this). Thanks.
> >>> >
> >>> > bq. Back when we first discussed branching for 1.4 Yu Li asked for
> >>> this...
> >>> > Thanks for remembering this and keeping the promise boss (smile).
> >>> >
> >>> > Best Regards,
> >>> > Yu
> >>> >
> >>> >> On 11 November 2017 at 03:30, Andrew Purtell 
> >>> wrote:
> >>> >>
> >>> >> The march to 1.4.0 is progressing.
> >>> >>
> >>> >> I've run the unit test suite on a C4 class AWS instance 25 times and
> >>> there
> >>> >> are no failures. This is ongoing. I'm aiming for 100 runs.
> >>> >>
> >>> >> Fix versions are now set up for constructing a reasonable change
> log.
> >>> >>
> >>> >> With HBASE-19232 applied a build with release audits enabled will
> pass.
> >>> >>
> >>> >> I backported error-prone support yesterday and will now look at
> >>> checkstyle
> >>> >> and error-prone analyses for important issues.
> >>> >>
> >>> >> I'll probably do HBASE-19238 before 1.4.0 goes out so that neat
> utility
> >>> >> will be available.
> >>> >>
> >>> >> Back when we first discussed branching for 1.4 Yu Li asked for this:
> >>> >>
> >>> >>> One naive question here: from the book
> >>> >>>  we will add
> >>> >>> functionality (in a backwards-compatible manner) in minor versions,
> >>> but
> >>> >> it
> >>> >>> seems we don't have any one-line description on the differences
> (what
> >>> >>> main functionalities have been added) between
> branch-1.1/1.2/1.3/1.4
> >>> so
> >>> >>> user could better decide which version to choose/upgrade. Should we
> >>> >>> add some explicit document on this? Or release note of the first
> >>> release
> >>> >>> for each branch is enough? Thanks.
> >>> >>
> >>> >> and I still agree to do it. I'll write it up while the RC is under
> >>> >> evaluation.
> >>> >>
> >>> >> ITBLL and replication testing to be performed on a small cluster
> once
> >>> we
> >>> >> have the RC binaries.
> >>> >>
> >>> >> Anything else? (Within reason...)
> >>> >>
> >>> >> --
> >>> >> Best regards,
> >>> >> Andrew
> >>> >>
> >>> >> Words like orphans lost among the crosstalk, meaning torn from
> truth's
> >>> >> decrepit hands
> >>> >>   - A23, Crosstalk
> >>> >>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Best regards,
> >> Andrew
> >>
> >> Words like orphans lost among the crosstalk, meaning torn from truth's
> >> decrepit hands
> >>- A23, Crosstalk
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Best regards,
> > Andrew
> >
> > Words like orphans lost among the crosstalk, meaning torn from truth's
> > decrepit hands
> >- A23, Crosstalk
>



-- 
Best regards,
Andrew

Words like orphans lost among the crosstalk, meaning torn from 

Re: Release 1.4.0 update

[Sean Busbey]

thanks for all the work as RM on this Andrew!

On Sat, Nov 18, 2017 at 12:19 PM, Andrew Purtell
 wrote:
> Everything is in and ready to go. I'm out next week for the Thanksgiving
> holiday, but will be back first week in December.
>
> Here is what I anticipate:
>
>- December 4
>   - 1.4.0 RC0 binaries will be available.
>   - Voting begins.
>   - Preflight checks will include RAT check, release audits, and 25
>   iterations of the unit test suite.
>- December 5 - 8
>   - 24 hours ITBLL
>   - PE and YCSB on cluster perf comparison with 1.2
>   - PE and YCSB single server profiling with JFR, comparison with 1.2
>- December 11
>   - Voting concludes
>   - Release, or RC1 depending on testing outcome
>   - December 18
>   - RC1 voting concludes and release, if we need a RC1
>
>
> From now until the 1.4.0 release, please refrain from committing
> potentially destabilizing changes or changes to public APIs to branch-1.4.
>
> On Mon, Nov 13, 2017 at 10:33 AM, Andrew Purtell 
> wrote:
>
>> On HBASE-19232 we discuss testing the shaded client using YCSB, so I'll
>> use it to sanity check the shaded client as well as complete a perf
>> comparison with 1.2.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Nov 11, 2017 at 9:53 AM, Andrew Purtell 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I'll do a PE comparison between 1.4.0 and 1.3 and/or 1.2. Maybe YSCB too
>>> if I have time. Good idea, thanks.
>>>
>>>
>>> > On Nov 11, 2017, at 5:05 AM, Yu Li  wrote:
>>> >
>>> > Great to know, really good progress!
>>> >
>>> > It seems we don't do performance comparison with current stable release
>>> > when releasing the first RC of a new branch, but should we do to avoid
>>> > issues like HBASE-14460 (write performance regression from 0.98 to 1.1)?
>>> > This is a must-have for us to decide new version for product env here,
>>> and
>>> > I wonder whether this applies for most users (please forgive my
>>> ignorance
>>> > if there's any existing policy for this). Thanks.
>>> >
>>> > bq. Back when we first discussed branching for 1.4 Yu Li asked for
>>> this...
>>> > Thanks for remembering this and keeping the promise boss (smile).
>>> >
>>> > Best Regards,
>>> > Yu
>>> >
>>> >> On 11 November 2017 at 03:30, Andrew Purtell 
>>> wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >> The march to 1.4.0 is progressing.
>>> >>
>>> >> I've run the unit test suite on a C4 class AWS instance 25 times and
>>> there
>>> >> are no failures. This is ongoing. I'm aiming for 100 runs.
>>> >>
>>> >> Fix versions are now set up for constructing a reasonable change log.
>>> >>
>>> >> With HBASE-19232 applied a build with release audits enabled will pass.
>>> >>
>>> >> I backported error-prone support yesterday and will now look at
>>> checkstyle
>>> >> and error-prone analyses for important issues.
>>> >>
>>> >> I'll probably do HBASE-19238 before 1.4.0 goes out so that neat utility
>>> >> will be available.
>>> >>
>>> >> Back when we first discussed branching for 1.4 Yu Li asked for this:
>>> >>
>>> >>> One naive question here: from the book
>>> >>>  we will add
>>> >>> functionality (in a backwards-compatible manner) in minor versions,
>>> but
>>> >> it
>>> >>> seems we don't have any one-line description on the differences (what
>>> >>> main functionalities have been added) between branch-1.1/1.2/1.3/1.4
>>> so
>>> >>> user could better decide which version to choose/upgrade. Should we
>>> >>> add some explicit document on this? Or release note of the first
>>> release
>>> >>> for each branch is enough? Thanks.
>>> >>
>>> >> and I still agree to do it. I'll write it up while the RC is under
>>> >> evaluation.
>>> >>
>>> >> ITBLL and replication testing to be performed on a small cluster once
>>> we
>>> >> have the RC binaries.
>>> >>
>>> >> Anything else? (Within reason...)
>>> >>
>>> >> --
>>> >> Best regards,
>>> >> Andrew
>>> >>
>>> >> Words like orphans lost among the crosstalk, meaning torn from truth's
>>> >> decrepit hands
>>> >>   - A23, Crosstalk
>>> >>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Best regards,
>> Andrew
>>
>> Words like orphans lost among the crosstalk, meaning torn from truth's
>> decrepit hands
>>- A23, Crosstalk
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Best regards,
> Andrew
>
> Words like orphans lost among the crosstalk, meaning torn from truth's
> decrepit hands
>- A23, Crosstalk

Re: Release 1.4.0 update

[Andrew Purtell]

Everything is in and ready to go. I'm out next week for the Thanksgiving
holiday, but will be back first week in December.

Here is what I anticipate:

   - December 4
  - 1.4.0 RC0 binaries will be available.
  - Voting begins.
  - Preflight checks will include RAT check, release audits, and 25
  iterations of the unit test suite.
   - December 5 - 8
  - 24 hours ITBLL
  - PE and YCSB on cluster perf comparison with 1.2
  - PE and YCSB single server profiling with JFR, comparison with 1.2
   - December 11
  - Voting concludes
  - Release, or RC1 depending on testing outcome
  - December 18
  - RC1 voting concludes and release, if we need a RC1


>From now until the 1.4.0 release, please refrain from committing
potentially destabilizing changes or changes to public APIs to branch-1.4.

On Mon, Nov 13, 2017 at 10:33 AM, Andrew Purtell 
wrote:

> On HBASE-19232 we discuss testing the shaded client using YCSB, so I'll
> use it to sanity check the shaded client as well as complete a perf
> comparison with 1.2.
>
>
>
> On Sat, Nov 11, 2017 at 9:53 AM, Andrew Purtell 
> wrote:
>
>> I'll do a PE comparison between 1.4.0 and 1.3 and/or 1.2. Maybe YSCB too
>> if I have time. Good idea, thanks.
>>
>>
>> > On Nov 11, 2017, at 5:05 AM, Yu Li  wrote:
>> >
>> > Great to know, really good progress!
>> >
>> > It seems we don't do performance comparison with current stable release
>> > when releasing the first RC of a new branch, but should we do to avoid
>> > issues like HBASE-14460 (write performance regression from 0.98 to 1.1)?
>> > This is a must-have for us to decide new version for product env here,
>> and
>> > I wonder whether this applies for most users (please forgive my
>> ignorance
>> > if there's any existing policy for this). Thanks.
>> >
>> > bq. Back when we first discussed branching for 1.4 Yu Li asked for
>> this...
>> > Thanks for remembering this and keeping the promise boss (smile).
>> >
>> > Best Regards,
>> > Yu
>> >
>> >> On 11 November 2017 at 03:30, Andrew Purtell 
>> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> The march to 1.4.0 is progressing.
>> >>
>> >> I've run the unit test suite on a C4 class AWS instance 25 times and
>> there
>> >> are no failures. This is ongoing. I'm aiming for 100 runs.
>> >>
>> >> Fix versions are now set up for constructing a reasonable change log.
>> >>
>> >> With HBASE-19232 applied a build with release audits enabled will pass.
>> >>
>> >> I backported error-prone support yesterday and will now look at
>> checkstyle
>> >> and error-prone analyses for important issues.
>> >>
>> >> I'll probably do HBASE-19238 before 1.4.0 goes out so that neat utility
>> >> will be available.
>> >>
>> >> Back when we first discussed branching for 1.4 Yu Li asked for this:
>> >>
>> >>> One naive question here: from the book
>> >>>  we will add
>> >>> functionality (in a backwards-compatible manner) in minor versions,
>> but
>> >> it
>> >>> seems we don't have any one-line description on the differences (what
>> >>> main functionalities have been added) between branch-1.1/1.2/1.3/1.4
>> so
>> >>> user could better decide which version to choose/upgrade. Should we
>> >>> add some explicit document on this? Or release note of the first
>> release
>> >>> for each branch is enough? Thanks.
>> >>
>> >> and I still agree to do it. I'll write it up while the RC is under
>> >> evaluation.
>> >>
>> >> ITBLL and replication testing to be performed on a small cluster once
>> we
>> >> have the RC binaries.
>> >>
>> >> Anything else? (Within reason...)
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> Best regards,
>> >> Andrew
>> >>
>> >> Words like orphans lost among the crosstalk, meaning torn from truth's
>> >> decrepit hands
>> >>   - A23, Crosstalk
>> >>
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Best regards,
> Andrew
>
> Words like orphans lost among the crosstalk, meaning torn from truth's
> decrepit hands
>- A23, Crosstalk
>



-- 
Best regards,
Andrew

Words like orphans lost among the crosstalk, meaning torn from truth's
decrepit hands
   - A23, Crosstalk

Re: Release 1.4.0 update

[Andrew Purtell]

On HBASE-19232 we discuss testing the shaded client using YCSB, so I'll use
it to sanity check the shaded client as well as complete a perf comparison
with 1.2.



On Sat, Nov 11, 2017 at 9:53 AM, Andrew Purtell 
wrote:

> I'll do a PE comparison between 1.4.0 and 1.3 and/or 1.2. Maybe YSCB too
> if I have time. Good idea, thanks.
>
>
> > On Nov 11, 2017, at 5:05 AM, Yu Li  wrote:
> >
> > Great to know, really good progress!
> >
> > It seems we don't do performance comparison with current stable release
> > when releasing the first RC of a new branch, but should we do to avoid
> > issues like HBASE-14460 (write performance regression from 0.98 to 1.1)?
> > This is a must-have for us to decide new version for product env here,
> and
> > I wonder whether this applies for most users (please forgive my ignorance
> > if there's any existing policy for this). Thanks.
> >
> > bq. Back when we first discussed branching for 1.4 Yu Li asked for
> this...
> > Thanks for remembering this and keeping the promise boss (smile).
> >
> > Best Regards,
> > Yu
> >
> >> On 11 November 2017 at 03:30, Andrew Purtell 
> wrote:
> >>
> >> The march to 1.4.0 is progressing.
> >>
> >> I've run the unit test suite on a C4 class AWS instance 25 times and
> there
> >> are no failures. This is ongoing. I'm aiming for 100 runs.
> >>
> >> Fix versions are now set up for constructing a reasonable change log.
> >>
> >> With HBASE-19232 applied a build with release audits enabled will pass.
> >>
> >> I backported error-prone support yesterday and will now look at
> checkstyle
> >> and error-prone analyses for important issues.
> >>
> >> I'll probably do HBASE-19238 before 1.4.0 goes out so that neat utility
> >> will be available.
> >>
> >> Back when we first discussed branching for 1.4 Yu Li asked for this:
> >>
> >>> One naive question here: from the book
> >>>  we will add
> >>> functionality (in a backwards-compatible manner) in minor versions, but
> >> it
> >>> seems we don't have any one-line description on the differences (what
> >>> main functionalities have been added) between branch-1.1/1.2/1.3/1.4 so
> >>> user could better decide which version to choose/upgrade. Should we
> >>> add some explicit document on this? Or release note of the first
> release
> >>> for each branch is enough? Thanks.
> >>
> >> and I still agree to do it. I'll write it up while the RC is under
> >> evaluation.
> >>
> >> ITBLL and replication testing to be performed on a small cluster once we
> >> have the RC binaries.
> >>
> >> Anything else? (Within reason...)
> >>
> >> --
> >> Best regards,
> >> Andrew
> >>
> >> Words like orphans lost among the crosstalk, meaning torn from truth's
> >> decrepit hands
> >>   - A23, Crosstalk
> >>
>



-- 
Best regards,
Andrew

Words like orphans lost among the crosstalk, meaning torn from truth's
decrepit hands
   - A23, Crosstalk

Re: Release 1.4.0 update

[Andrew Purtell]

I'll do a PE comparison between 1.4.0 and 1.3 and/or 1.2. Maybe YSCB too if I 
have time. Good idea, thanks. 


> On Nov 11, 2017, at 5:05 AM, Yu Li  wrote:
> 
> Great to know, really good progress!
> 
> It seems we don't do performance comparison with current stable release
> when releasing the first RC of a new branch, but should we do to avoid
> issues like HBASE-14460 (write performance regression from 0.98 to 1.1)?
> This is a must-have for us to decide new version for product env here, and
> I wonder whether this applies for most users (please forgive my ignorance
> if there's any existing policy for this). Thanks.
> 
> bq. Back when we first discussed branching for 1.4 Yu Li asked for this...
> Thanks for remembering this and keeping the promise boss (smile).
> 
> Best Regards,
> Yu
> 
>> On 11 November 2017 at 03:30, Andrew Purtell  wrote:
>> 
>> The march to 1.4.0 is progressing.
>> 
>> I've run the unit test suite on a C4 class AWS instance 25 times and there
>> are no failures. This is ongoing. I'm aiming for 100 runs.
>> 
>> Fix versions are now set up for constructing a reasonable change log.
>> 
>> With HBASE-19232 applied a build with release audits enabled will pass.
>> 
>> I backported error-prone support yesterday and will now look at checkstyle
>> and error-prone analyses for important issues.
>> 
>> I'll probably do HBASE-19238 before 1.4.0 goes out so that neat utility
>> will be available.
>> 
>> Back when we first discussed branching for 1.4 Yu Li asked for this:
>> 
>>> One naive question here: from the book
>>>  we will add
>>> functionality (in a backwards-compatible manner) in minor versions, but
>> it
>>> seems we don't have any one-line description on the differences (what
>>> main functionalities have been added) between branch-1.1/1.2/1.3/1.4 so
>>> user could better decide which version to choose/upgrade. Should we
>>> add some explicit document on this? Or release note of the first release
>>> for each branch is enough? Thanks.
>> 
>> and I still agree to do it. I'll write it up while the RC is under
>> evaluation.
>> 
>> ITBLL and replication testing to be performed on a small cluster once we
>> have the RC binaries.
>> 
>> Anything else? (Within reason...)
>> 
>> --
>> Best regards,
>> Andrew
>> 
>> Words like orphans lost among the crosstalk, meaning torn from truth's
>> decrepit hands
>>   - A23, Crosstalk
>> 

Re: Release 1.4.0 update

[Mike Drob]

For the performance regression analysis, we can kind of use ITBLL as a poor
man's benchmark.

Let's document the time/hardware/data volume in the release notes. Then we
can start to get a picture across releases, since this is resting we do
anyway.

Mike

On Sat, Nov 11, 2017, 7:06 AM Yu Li  wrote:

> Great to know, really good progress!
>
> It seems we don't do performance comparison with current stable release
> when releasing the first RC of a new branch, but should we do to avoid
> issues like HBASE-14460 (write performance regression from 0.98 to 1.1)?
> This is a must-have for us to decide new version for product env here, and
> I wonder whether this applies for most users (please forgive my ignorance
> if there's any existing policy for this). Thanks.
>
> bq. Back when we first discussed branching for 1.4 Yu Li asked for this...
> Thanks for remembering this and keeping the promise boss (smile).
>
> Best Regards,
> Yu
>
> On 11 November 2017 at 03:30, Andrew Purtell  wrote:
>
> > The march to 1.4.0 is progressing.
> >
> > I've run the unit test suite on a C4 class AWS instance 25 times and
> there
> > are no failures. This is ongoing. I'm aiming for 100 runs.
> >
> > Fix versions are now set up for constructing a reasonable change log.
> >
> > With HBASE-19232 applied a build with release audits enabled will pass.
> >
> > I backported error-prone support yesterday and will now look at
> checkstyle
> > and error-prone analyses for important issues.
> >
> > I'll probably do HBASE-19238 before 1.4.0 goes out so that neat utility
> > will be available.
> >
> > Back when we first discussed branching for 1.4 Yu Li asked for this:
> >
> > > One naive question here: from the book
> > >  we will add
> > > functionality (in a backwards-compatible manner) in minor versions, but
> > it
> > > seems we don't have any one-line description on the differences (what
> > > main functionalities have been added) between branch-1.1/1.2/1.3/1.4 so
> > > user could better decide which version to choose/upgrade. Should we
> > > add some explicit document on this? Or release note of the first
> release
> > > for each branch is enough? Thanks.
> >
> > and I still agree to do it. I'll write it up while the RC is under
> > evaluation.
> >
> > ITBLL and replication testing to be performed on a small cluster once we
> > have the RC binaries.
> >
> > Anything else? (Within reason...)
> >
> > --
> > Best regards,
> > Andrew
> >
> > Words like orphans lost among the crosstalk, meaning torn from truth's
> > decrepit hands
> >- A23, Crosstalk
> >
>

Re: Release 1.4.0 update

[Yu Li]

Great to know, really good progress!

It seems we don't do performance comparison with current stable release
when releasing the first RC of a new branch, but should we do to avoid
issues like HBASE-14460 (write performance regression from 0.98 to 1.1)?
This is a must-have for us to decide new version for product env here, and
I wonder whether this applies for most users (please forgive my ignorance
if there's any existing policy for this). Thanks.

bq. Back when we first discussed branching for 1.4 Yu Li asked for this...
Thanks for remembering this and keeping the promise boss (smile).

Best Regards,
Yu

On 11 November 2017 at 03:30, Andrew Purtell  wrote:

> The march to 1.4.0 is progressing.
>
> I've run the unit test suite on a C4 class AWS instance 25 times and there
> are no failures. This is ongoing. I'm aiming for 100 runs.
>
> Fix versions are now set up for constructing a reasonable change log.
>
> With HBASE-19232 applied a build with release audits enabled will pass.
>
> I backported error-prone support yesterday and will now look at checkstyle
> and error-prone analyses for important issues.
>
> I'll probably do HBASE-19238 before 1.4.0 goes out so that neat utility
> will be available.
>
> Back when we first discussed branching for 1.4 Yu Li asked for this:
>
> > One naive question here: from the book
> >  we will add
> > functionality (in a backwards-compatible manner) in minor versions, but
> it
> > seems we don't have any one-line description on the differences (what
> > main functionalities have been added) between branch-1.1/1.2/1.3/1.4 so
> > user could better decide which version to choose/upgrade. Should we
> > add some explicit document on this? Or release note of the first release
> > for each branch is enough? Thanks.
>
> and I still agree to do it. I'll write it up while the RC is under
> evaluation.
>
> ITBLL and replication testing to be performed on a small cluster once we
> have the RC binaries.
>
> Anything else? (Within reason...)
>
> --
> Best regards,
> Andrew
>
> Words like orphans lost among the crosstalk, meaning torn from truth's
> decrepit hands
>- A23, Crosstalk
>