+1!
Best regards,
- Andy
Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back.
- Piet Hein (via Tom White)
--- On Tue, 1/18/11, Gary Helmling ghelml...@gmail.com wrote:
From: Gary Helmling ghelml...@gmail.com
Subject: Re: ANN: The fourth hbase 0.90.0 release candidate is
+1, ran the tests, checked out the docs, gave it a ride.
J-D
On Fri, Jan 7, 2011 at 5:03 PM, Stack st...@duboce.net wrote:
The fourth hbase 0.90.0 release candidate is available for download:
http://people.apache.org/~stack/hbase-0.90.0-candidate-3/
This is going to be the one!
Should we
+0.5 :)
There are some lingering bugs that I am running into here and there, but the
good news is that hbck -fix has fixed almost all of them.
Let's get this release out the door and start cranking on 0.90.1 :)
-Todd
On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 5:20 PM, Gary Helmling ghelml...@gmail.com wrote:
+0
Sure, I'll change my vote on the grounds that I'm now pretty sure it's just an
exception handling issue and not a more fundamental data issue.
For people who find the Master dying suddenly when they move data around (or
restart an EC2 instance) they can trust that their data is recoverable
I'm +1 on releasing this candidate as 0.90.0. I've been playing with
it for a while now and it all basically works.
St.Ack
On Fri, Jan 14, 2011 at 7:19 PM, Stack saint@gmail.com wrote:
Hey James:
I to petition that you convert your vote to at least a +0. The issue you
filed is priority
-1 for the following bug:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-3445
Note however that aside from this issue RC 3 looks pretty stable:
* All HBase tests pass (on a Mac)
* All hbase-trx tests pass after I upgraded
https://github.com/hbase-trx/hbase-transactional-tableindexed
* All tests
Hey,
It's a pretty unusual situation that got you into 3445? It's been a
few weeks of RCs, and we need to push out a 0.90.0 so everyone can
benefit from it. We can release point releases fairly quickly once a
stable base release is out, does that sound reasonable to you?
Thanks for testing!
Hey James:
I to petition that you convert your vote to at least a +0. The issue you filed
is priority critical. Not blocker priority. The issue needs triage first to
figure it's severity. I would suggest you let 0.90.0 go on the meantime. I am
fairly sure a 0.90.1 will follow in short
On Sat, Jan 8, 2011 at 10:03 PM, Ted Yu yuzhih...@gmail.com wrote
I ran TestMergeTool twice in Eclipse and couldn't reproduce it.
Good.
I suggest adding errCode to assertion message:
assertTrue(' + msg + ' failed, errCode == 0);
Yes. I think this good practise, something we should all
TestReplication times out after 900 seconds.
I think RC3 tests fail more frequently than those of RC2 tests on my Mac.
On Mon, Jan 10, 2011 at 10:57 AM, Stack st...@duboce.net wrote:
On Sat, Jan 8, 2011 at 10:03 PM, Ted Yu yuzhih...@gmail.com wrote
I ran TestMergeTool twice in Eclipse and
I downloaded RC3 and encountered a repeatable unit test failure on my Mac
laptop
Test set: org.apache.hadoop.hbase.util.TestMergeTool
---
Tests run: 1, Failures: 1, Errors: 0, Skipped: 0, Time elapsed: 6.087 sec
FAILURE!
My previous TestMergeTool tests may have been affected by other tests as I
ran all of them.
I ran TestMergeTool twice in Eclipse and couldn't reproduce it.
I will pay attention if failure happens again.
I suggest adding errCode to assertion message:
assertTrue(' + msg + ' failed, errCode ==
The fourth hbase 0.90.0 release candidate is available for download:
http://people.apache.org/~stack/hbase-0.90.0-candidate-3/
This is going to be the one!
Should we release this candidate as hbase 0.90.0? Take it for a spin.
Check out the doc., etc. Vote +1/-1 by next Friday, the 14th of
13 matches
Mail list logo
