The vote has passed with 3 binding and 1 non-binding +1's and one -0. I'll
push the release artifacts shortly.
Thanks for testing the release!
Enis
On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 1:42 PM, Andrew Purtell apurt...@apache.org wrote:
+1
Checked signatures
Unpacked tarballs, layout looks good
Built
+1
Checked signatures
Unpacked tarballs, layout looks good
Built from source
RAT check passed
Checked docs. Minor issue with logo asset not loading, not critical.
Started single node cluster and ran LTT of 1M keys, no unusual or
unexpected warnings or errors, reported latencies were stable after
UT run for this RC is at
https://builds.apache.org/view/All/job/HBase-1.0.1RC2/4/. Previous runs had
some flaky failures.
Kind reminder that the RC vote has been extended until tonight since we did
not get enough votes. Please spend some time for the RC if you can.
Thanks.
Enis
On Sun, Apr 26,
Here is my +1 for the RC.
Checked sigs, crcs,
Checked layout, jars
Checked the book
Run local mode
Run on a 5 node cluster
Run smoke test, simple shell commands
Run LTT with 1M and different encodings / compression
Run ITBLL, wrote 100M nodes
Test with 1.0.0 and 0.98.12 clients
Thanks Ted and
Yes, consider voting resumed.
Andrew, is +1 for the RC or for resuming voting?
Let me extend the VOTE until Sunday 11:59PM PDT for lost time.
Enis
On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 1:55 PM, Andrew Purtell apurt...@apache.org wrote:
+1
On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 1:35 PM, Stack st...@duboce.net wrote:
+1
On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 1:35 PM, Stack st...@duboce.net wrote:
Can this VOTE thread come back to life now?
St.Ack
On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 11:15 AM, Enis Söztutar enis@gmail.com
wrote:
On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 10:19 AM, Andrew Purtell apurt...@apache.org
wrote:
Let's
Let's postpone this vote.
See the threads on dev@ titled Clarifying interface evolution freedom in
patch releases and The Renumbering (proposed).
On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 4:31 PM, Sean Busbey bus...@cloudera.com wrote:
On Apr 22, 2015 4:40 PM, Enis Söztutar enis@gmail.com wrote:
I
On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 10:19 AM, Andrew Purtell apurt...@apache.org
wrote:
Let's postpone this vote.
Agreed.
See the threads on dev@ titled Clarifying interface evolution freedom in
patch releases and The Renumbering (proposed).
On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 4:31 PM, Sean Busbey
On Apr 22, 2015 4:40 PM, Enis Söztutar enis@gmail.com wrote:
I think the agreement is to continue with the RC.
One note... in the japi report, I was a little surprised when I noticed
method additions to InterfaceAudience.Public annotated classes. This means
that a user could write code
I think the agreement is to continue with the RC.
One note... in the japi report, I was a little surprised when I noticed
method additions to InterfaceAudience.Public annotated classes. This means
that a user could write code against 1.0.1 that would not work against
1.0.0 which seems
My thinking is I just feel weird saying here's a new release should be used
when we know that the hadoop we ship with won't be stable under load and
the region will be locked forever if an errant request comes in. I totally
agree that 7005 isn't enough to sink the release (especially since 1.0.0
Getting the release cadence going on 1.0 is important IMHO. We're already
pretty far out from the initial 1.0.0.
Our deployment instructions have always said to replace the Hadoop jars, I
don't see why we can't just point people with an actual load towards
updating Hadoop to 2.6+.
--
Sean
On
+1 on what Sean said.
On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 6:10 PM, Sean Busbey bus...@cloudera.com wrote:
Getting the release cadence going on 1.0 is important IMHO. We're already
pretty far out from the initial 1.0.0.
Our deployment instructions have always said to replace the Hadoop jars, I
don't see
+1 (non-binding)
* Checked sigs/xsums
* Looked for binary files in source tarball (found none unexpected)
* Built/ran-tests from source
* Started instance from binary tarball, ran shell commands
* Perused japi report
One note... in the japi report, I was a little surprised when I noticed
Any thoughts on how HBASE-13471 and HDFS-7005 would affect this RC?
On Sat, Apr 18, 2015 at 3:17 PM, Ted Yu yuzhih...@gmail.com wrote:
+1
Checked signatures
Ran unit test suite
Exercised basic shell commands
On Fri, Apr 17, 2015 at 11:06 PM, Enis Söztutar e...@apache.org wrote:
I am
1.0.x series comes compiled with 2.5.1, but it can be run with 2.6.0
without recompiling (I usually do this in release candidate testing). 2.5.1
and 2.6.0 are binary compatible as far as I tested. Although earlier Hadoop
versions are not. Thus HDFS-7005 should not have any affect on this RC I
+1
Checked signatures
Ran unit test suite
Exercised basic shell commands
On Fri, Apr 17, 2015 at 11:06 PM, Enis Söztutar e...@apache.org wrote:
I am pleased to announce that the third release candidate for the release
1.0.1
(HBase-1.0.1RC2), is available for download at
I am pleased to announce that the third release candidate for the release
1.0.1
(HBase-1.0.1RC2), is available for download at
https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/hbase/hbase-1.0.1RC2/
Maven artifacts are also available in the temporary repository
18 matches
Mail list logo
