Re: Release 1.4.0 update

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

Re: Release 1.4.0 update

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

Re: Release 1.4.0 update

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,

Re: Release 1.4.0 update

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

Re: Release 1.4.0 update

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

Re: Release 1.4.0 update

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

Re: Release 1.4.0 update

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 > >

Re: Release 1.4.0 update

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: >

Re: Release 1.4.0 update

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

Re: Release 1.4.0 update

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

Re: Release 1.4.0 update

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

Re: Release 1.4.0 update

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

Re: Release 1.4.0 update

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

Re: Release 1.4.0 update

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,

Re: Release 1.4.0 update

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

Re: Release 1.4.0 update

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: > >-

Re: Release 1.4.0 update

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

Re: Release 1.4.0 update

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

Re: Release 1.4.0 update

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 >

Re: Release 1.4.0 update

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

Re: Release 1.4.0 update

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