Re: ANN: The second hbase-0.96-1 release candidate is available for download

Jon fixed the Increment issue. Nicolas may have fixed the slow down issue -- we'll know after a few runs this weekend. I'll put up a new RC Monday regardless. St.Ack On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 6:16 AM, Stack wrote: > Good one Jon. > > RC is sunk. Will put up a new one

Re: Branching 0.98

just committed the change that sets hadoop2 as default on this branch). I made these use java7 too. > Stack should be able to grant you karma. > I followed instructions here: http://wiki.apache.org/general/Jenkins Try it now Andy. St.Ack

Re: Default JDK settings for Jenkins projects

On Sun, Dec 8, 2013 at 5:17 PM, Andrew Purtell wrote: > I was looking for differences between the trunk and 0.98 builds since > Jenkins projects for the former are passing while the latter are not. Seems > the trunk jobs are set up to use "JDK 1.6 (latest)" while the 0.98 builds > are set up to u

Re: ANN: The second hbase-0.96-1 release candidate is available for download

Are we good to go on RC2? Just waiting on HBase-10101? Anything else? Thanks, St.Ack On Fri, Dec 6, 2013 at 1:43 PM, Stack wrote: > Jon fixed the Increment issue. Nicolas may have fixed the slow down issue > -- we'll know after a few runs this weekend. > > I'll

Re: ANN: The second hbase-0.96-1 release candidate is available for download

Excellent. Starting build. Thanks lads, St.Ack On Mon, Dec 9, 2013 at 4:13 PM, Jimmy Xiang wrote: > HBASE-10101 is in. Thanks. > > > On Mon, Dec 9, 2013 at 4:09 PM, Stack wrote: > > > Are we good to go on RC2? Just waiting on HBase-10101? Anything else? &

ANN: The third hbase-0.96.1 release candidate is available for download

The third hbase-0.96.1 release candidate is available for download: http://people.apache.org/~stack/hbase-0.96.1RC2/ The maven artifacts are available here: https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachehbase-037/ 152 issues [1] have been fixed since 0.96.0, mostly

Re: Hadoop version trunk dependency?

On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 9:56 AM, Jonathan Hsieh wrote: > There are two things being discussed here -- can we clarify where folks > stand on this? Here's how I'm interpreting it (please correct). > > deprecate hadoop1 in 0.98/trunk? (+1's from stack, ted, enis

Re: ANN: The third hbase-0.96.1 release candidate is available for download

+1 I started it over a cluster that had data written with trunk and it came up fine. I ran a loading and no untoward exceptions. Download looks right. md5 checks out. Any more +1's out there? St.Ack On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 10:55 AM, Stack wrote: > The third hbase-0.96.1 release c

[RESULT] ANN: The third hbase-0.96.1 release candidate is available for download

Vote passes with 4 binding +1s and 1 non-binding. Let me push out the release. St.Ack On Mon, Dec 16, 2013 at 10:01 AM, Stack wrote: > +1 > > I started it over a cluster that had data written with trunk and it came > up fine. I ran a loading and no untoward exceptions. > &

Re: [RESULT] ANN: The third hbase-0.96.1 release candidate is available for download

On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 7:38 AM, Jean-Marc Spaggiari < jean-m...@spaggiari.org> wrote: > Sorry about that mates, I know I'm late. I was fighting against snappy > codec for the last few days and was not able to correctly startup my 0.96.1 > version. > > So since it's already over, I have done a red

Re: Rolling a quick patch release due to API incompatibility introduced in 0.96.1

+1 On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 8:41 AM, Jonathan Hsieh wrote: > Hey folks, > > I was reviewing some patches [0] and found that we introduced an API > incompatibility in 0.96.1. [1] The problem has been fixed. [2]. > > To make it a quick release I'm thinking of taking the 0.96.1 tag and only > appl

Re: ANNOUNCE: hbase 0.96.1.1rc0 release candidate is available for download.

+1 Downloaded, unbundled, checked layout, and ran it. Browsed the mvn artifacts. St.Ack On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 2:23 PM, Jonathan Hsieh wrote: > This is a quick-fix release directly off of the 0.96.1 release. It can be > downloaded here: > > http://people.apache.org/~jmhsieh/hbase-0.96.1.1

Re: HBASE-7088 ready to commit ;)

Here is what we decided as 'policy' on +1s: http://hbase.apache.org/book.html#decisions At our last meetup, we talked of upping the commit friction some to give chance for more review before commit but this suggestion did not progress beyond discussion. St.Ack On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 3:32 PM,

Re: HBASE-7088 ready to commit ;)

RC at EOM sounds good Andy, St.Ack On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 4:42 PM, Stack wrote: > Here is what we decided as 'policy' on +1s: > > http://hbase.apache.org/book.html#decisions > > At our last meetup, we talked of upping the commit friction some to give > chance for m

Please welcome our newest committer, Liang Xie!

谢良 has been doing great work for ages now; we're glad to have him on board ("One of us!"). Keep up the great work 谢良. St.Ack

Re: HBASE-7088 ready to commit ;)

es. > > > For trivial, your suggestion above is fine. The policy is for substantive patches. If that is not clear, I can add wording so. St.Ack 1. http://apache-hbase.679495.n3.nabble.com/Minutes-from-Developer-Meetup-at-HWX-October-24th-td4052382.html 2. http://qnalist.com/questions/

Re: ANNOUNCE: hbase 0.96.1.1rc0 release candidate is available for download.

On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 8:39 AM, Jonathan Hsieh wrote: > ... > > I've spent some time reviewing HBASE-10142, There are some non-test code > modifications still trying to determine if it is a serious problem or not > on that side. Ted, is there a reason why this wasn't ported to the 0.96 > branc

Re: HBASE-7088 ready to commit ;)

he owners list. In my previous mail I was giving the impression that I though 'lieutenants/owners' is not working but when I started to list out default owners in response to Andrew and then after sending the mail, continued the listing in my head (matteo for snapshotting, stack on rpc,

Re: HBASE-7088 ready to commit ;)

On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 2:34 PM, Andrew Purtell wrote: > > You are not in favor of what is doc'd as community decision? > > No, and as a member of the community let me indicate that and suggest > reconsideration. > > Lets start up a formal discussion then Andrew with a DISCUSSION subject rather t

Re: Compiling with hadoop 2.0 and hadoop 3.0

On Mon, Dec 23, 2013 at 2:36 AM, ramkrishna vasudevan < ramkrishna.s.vasude...@gmail.com> wrote: > Trying to execute > mvn clean install -DskipTests -Dhadoop.profile=2.0 > mvn clean install -DskipTests -Dhadoop.profile=3.0 > I get the following error > > [ERROR] The project org.apache.hbase:hbas

Re: Re: About HBASE-3149

On Mon, Dec 23, 2013 at 11:52 AM, Nick Dimiduk wrote: > On Sat, Dec 21, 2013 at 7:07 PM, 乃岩 wrote: > > > Hello, Thank you for your reply. > > If use only 1 or 2 CFs, why Hbase say it's a column data store? It's > > actually row-based data store!! > > > > Nit: I don't think HBase claims to be a c

Re: Re: About HBASE-3149

I'd do non-relational database as per Jon... just make the change Nick I'll push out later no worries (it is a bit of a pain... learn it by all means but this is not cause enough) On Mon, Dec 23, 2013 at 1:03 PM, Jonathan Hsieh wrote: > I usually say, non-relational database. > > Jon. > > >

Re: Compiling with hadoop 2.0 and hadoop 3.0

On Mon, Dec 23, 2013 at 3:10 PM, Nick Dimiduk wrote: > Stack, > > Do you know why we use (-D) properties rather than using maven's > -PprofileName to enable profiles? Maybe there's a discussion someplace > where I can familiarize myself with this history? > I believ

Re: Compiling with hadoop 2.0 and hadoop 3.0

On Mon, Dec 23, 2013 at 8:29 PM, ramkrishna vasudevan < ramkrishna.s.vasude...@gmail.com> wrote: > Oh I see. So there was already an discussion on that. It was my ignorance. > Sorry about that. Thanks for the replies. > > This stuff is kinda cryptic. I updated the doc. but wouldn't have done s

Re: Please don't delete old versions, it hurts Homebrew users

Sorry about that Andrew. Apache Infrastructure chases us from time to time if we leave too many old versions laying about on the published repo. because we are taking up too much space. You have an alternative for how we might archive older releases? Thanks, St.Ack On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 8:20 A

Re: Next week I would like to roll the first 0.98.0 RC

On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 10:52 AM, Andrew Purtell wrote: > I have finished 50 runs of the unit test suite using JDK 6 and JDK 7 on > RHEL 6, Ubuntu 12, and Ubuntu 13. The combined results by JDK version are > as follows: > > JDK 6 - Java(TM) SE Runtime Environment (build 1.6.0_43-b01) HotSpot(TM) >

DISCUSSION: 1.0.0

Andrew is talking of the first 0.98RC being imminent. Time to start in on the release that will follow 0.98.x. We seem to all be good with calling it 1.0.0. Speak up if you think different. (I just added a 1.0.0 version to JIRA). + What should 1.0.0 have in it beyond what is in 0.98. + Why can'

Re: Design review: Secondary index support through coprocess

On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 6:36 AM, Jesse Yates wrote: > ... > > For folks that haven't been following the issue some high-level "how it all > kinda works" would be helpful from the championing commiters; that's a long > doc to get through and grok :). How similar is this to the work currently > by t

Re: 1.0 and cleaning up the APIs

On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 5:43 PM, Sergey Shelukhin wrote: > Hi. > > I was wondering if we intend to release 1.0 as compatible version with 0.96 > and 0.98. I would assume so.. > +1 Lets get 1.0 out sooner rather than later. > If so, then after 1.0, or if not then maybe even for 1.0, to have th

Re: duplicate servlet-api jars in hbase 0.96.0

Thanks for reporting Jerry. I filed HBASE-10313 . Will take a look at this for 0.96.2. St.Ack On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 2:49 PM, Jerry He wrote: > In the lib folder in HBase 0.96.0 tarball we have this: > > [biadmin@hdtest009 lib]$ ls -l jsp-api* > -rw-rw-r-- 1 biadmin biadmin 134910 Sep 17 01:1

Re: Branch 0.98 update and soft freeze

HBASE-10321 should be done before RC I'd say. Sounds good Andrew, St.Ack On Sat, Jan 11, 2014 at 11:27 AM, Andrew Purtell wrote: > I am just about ready to tag the 0.98.0RC and release the branch. There are > two items left that are a must I feel: > - HBASE-6873, which I will get to at the next

Re: 1.0 and cleaning up the APIs

On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 9:59 AM, Sergey Shelukhin wrote: > > Lets get 1.0 out sooner rather than later. > ... > > I think a cleanup of APIs for 1.0 would be in order. > Do you mean after 1.0? That's what I read from the previous comment. > Presumably, changing client APIs will break compat. > > B

Re: [PROPOSAL] HBASE-10070 branch

On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 12:44 AM, Enis Söztutar wrote: > Hi, > > I just wanted to give some updates on the HBASE-10070 efforts from the > technical side, and development side, and propose a branch. > > From the technical side: > The changes for region replicas phase 1 are becoming more mature and

Re: [PROPOSAL] HBASE-10070 branch

On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 12:51 PM, Devaraj Das wrote: > Some responses inline. Thanks for the inputs. > > On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 11:17 AM, Stack wrote: > > On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 12:44 AM, Enis Söztutar >wrote: > > > >> Hi, > >> > >> I

Re: [PROPOSAL] HBASE-10070 branch

the > > > new > > > > interesting use cases introduced by this new level of complexity put > > > upon a > > > > system that has just achieved a hard-won stability. > > > > > > > > > > Stack, the model is that the replicas (HRe

Re: [PROPOSAL] HBASE-10070 branch

On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 2:38 PM, Andrew Purtell wrote: > On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 2:24 PM, Stack wrote: > > > > However, with different tables, it will be unintuitive > > > since the meta, and the > > > client side would have to bring different regions of diffe

Your conference is coming up fast: HBaseCon2014 is May 5th in San Francisco

On May 5th in San Francisco, the third HBaseCon, HBaseCon2014, THE HBase Community Conference, will take place. You should ALL come! The call for papers is out now and closes February 14th, so don't dally. If you need help w/ a submission, ping your program committee for help; we are al up to he

Re: Where are we in ZOOKEEPER-1416

On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 2:53 PM, Andrew Purtell wrote: > What is going on with this thread over on dev@zookeeper? Bringing it to > the > attention of people over here. > > > Ted? St.Ack > -- Forwarded message -- > From: Ted Dunning > Date: Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 2:41 PM > Subj

Re: DISCUSSION: 1.0.0

On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 1:20 PM, Enis Söztutar wrote: > I think whether we will need a new RM will depend on the decision to > release 1.0 from 0.98 branches or 0.99 branches(current trunk). > > I think it should have an RM regardless. We should probably try to put a higher polish on a 1.0 than w

Re: DISCUSSION: 1.0.0

On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 1:52 PM, lars hofhansl wrote: > I'm happy to volunteer. Happy if Enis does it, too. > > I'd be happy to do it too but my thinking is that it is good to spread the role around. St.Ack > -- > *From:* Stack >

Re: Are we no longer giving credit in SVN commit messages?

I have never added the contributor. Let me do it from here on out. Let me write up the above agreement into the refguide. St.Ack On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 7:51 PM, ramkrishna vasudevan < ramkrishna.s.vasude...@gmail.com> wrote: > +1. > I used to follow the above said practice. But I add my own

Re: Are we no longer giving credit in SVN commit messages?

On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 12:00 PM, Aditya wrote: > This might be easier if and when we move to Git as the system of record in > which case git am will take care of credit provided the patch is submitted > in git format. > > True. No progress on git front that I know off. Let me kick that thread.

Re: unable to create JIRA

On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 7:40 PM, Ted Yu wrote: > Hi, > In the past hour I tried 3 times in creating a JIRA. > > For the last two attempts, I got: > Error creating issue: Indexing completed with 1 errors > > Has anyone got similar error ? > I think you ran into the Atlassian hardcoded lifetime qu

Rolling a 0.92.2 start of next week

Speak up if you need to have something included. Thanks, St.Ack

Rolling a 0.96.2 start of next week

Um. Yes. 0.96.2 (Thanks V). St.Ack On Sat, Jan 25, 2014 at 3:14 PM, Vladimir Rodionov wrote: > 96? > > > On Sat, Jan 25, 2014 at 3:02 PM, Stack wrote: > > > Speak up if you need to have something included. > > Thanks, > > St.Ack > > >

Re: [VOTE] The 1st HBase 0.98.0 release candidate is available for download

I committed your patch on all branches Benoit. It'll make the next RC and any releases from here on out. St.Ack On Sun, Jan 26, 2014 at 6:37 PM, tsuna wrote: > If this RC sinks, can you please include this one in 0.98.0: > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-10422 > > -- > Benoit "tsun

Re: 1.5.0-SNAPSHOT conflicting with hbase-proto 0.96.x

On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 9:48 AM, Jonathan Hsieh wrote: > So is the suggestion to just add the other signature to hbase's version? > > Can't do that since the change is changing the param to be its superclass instead. > We recently ran into another problem due to this ZeroCopy class -- > shouldn

Re: [VOTE] The 1st HBase 0.98.0 release candidate is available for download

Maybe spin it tomorrow. I was going to take a look at 0.98 today. Let me see if I can turn up something else? St.Ack On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 10:16 AM, Andrew Purtell wrote: > Let me vote -1 on 0.98.0RC0 on account of HBASE-10422. > > I will spin a new RC today. > > > On Sat, Jan 25, 2014 at 11

Re: [VOTE] The 1st HBase 0.98.0 release candidate is available for download

t. St.Ack On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 10:25 AM, Andrew Purtell wrote: > Ok, I will tag RC1 tomorrow. > > > On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 10:21 AM, Stack wrote: > > > Maybe spin it tomorrow. I was going to take a look at 0.98 today. Let > me > > see if I can turn up something

Re: [VOTE] The 1st HBase 0.98.0 release candidate is available for download

On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 5:05 PM, Andrew Purtell wrote: > On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 4:16 PM, Stack wrote: > > > Logging could do w/ an edit -- too profuse. We need to make INFO level > > work before 1.0.0. > > > > Anything specific stand out? We can get in a INFO

Re: [VOTE] The 1st HBase 0.98.0 release candidate is available for download

On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 5:05 PM, Andrew Purtell wrote: > On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 4:16 PM, Stack wrote: > > > I brought a up 0.98 regionserver on a 0.96.1.1. cluster that was under > > load. It just slotted in and cluster kept going. > > > > I then brought up

Re: Balancer switch runs causing problems

/** * A janitor for the catalog tables. Scans the .META. catalog * table on a period looking for unused regions to garbage collect. */ class CatalogJanitor extends Chore { private static final Log LOG = LogFactory.getLog(CatalogJanitor.class.getName()); private final Server server; privat

Re: Binary API compatibility is not a requirement for any 0.98 release candidate

On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 7:01 PM, Andrew Purtell wrote: > I don't think we should shy away from breaking (binary API) changes until > 1.0. Then the expectations of a stable API kick in, so fix what need fixing > before. This was the rationale here. See the discussion around the time > the KV change

Re: Binary API compatibility is not a requirement for any 0.98 release candidate

On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 8:49 PM, Stack wrote: > > I can write up a little section on binary compat story based off this > thread. Will wait till we see what makes 0.98. > > We actually have a section on BC already in the refguide so would just need to add section on 0.96->0.98. St.Ack

Re: HBase log grows very fast after stopped hadoop (due to connection exception)

Logging at the rate you report is obnoxious. We should recognize HDFS is gone and backoff some. St.Ack On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 2:09 PM, Demai Ni wrote: > hi, > > we are using hbase 96.0(also saw the same issue on 94.x) on single node > cluster. At some point, we stopped Hadoop, but keep hbase r

Re: Rolling a 0.96.2 start of next week

I'm rolling this. Stop me if you want to include something. St.Ack On Sat, Jan 25, 2014 at 4:47 PM, Stack wrote: > Um. Yes. 0.96.2 (Thanks V). > St.Ack > > > On Sat, Jan 25, 2014 at 3:14 PM, Vladimir Rodionov > wrote: > >> 96? >> >> >

Re: The 3rd HBase 0.98.0 release candidate (RC2) is available for download

+1 I added a 0.98.0RC2 RS and M to a 6-node 0.96.x cluster under load. All kept going and all looks good digging in logs. Its been running for the last few hours. I checked the md5. Poked around the untar and it looks right. Docs have right labels and links basically work. St.Ack On Thu,

Re: The 3rd HBase 0.98.0 release candidate (RC2) is available for download

Let me retract for the moment. I want to make sure opentsdb works smooth before I +1'ing. I'll be back. St.Ack On Fri, Feb 7, 2014 at 3:06 PM, Stack wrote: > +1 > > I added a 0.98.0RC2 RS and M to a 6-node 0.96.x cluster under load. All > kept going and all looks good

Re: DISCUSSION: 1.0.0

? + Enable dynamic config and schema by default. St.Ack On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 4:09 PM, Stack wrote: > On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 1:52 PM, lars hofhansl wrote: > >> I'm happy to volunteer. Happy if Enis does it, too. >> >> > I'd be happy to do it too but my

Re: DISCUSSION: 1.0.0

On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 9:31 AM, Jean-Marc Spaggiari < jean-m...@spaggiari.org> wrote: > What's about reducing the default log level? > > Is the above different from '...Ship with default logging level set to INFO'? Thanks JMS, St.Ack > > 2014-02-10 12:24

Re: DISCUSSION: 1.0.0

On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 11:15 AM, Steve Loughran wrote: > On 10 February 2014 09:24, Stack wrote: > > > Suggestions for 1.0.0 if if it is to come out in next month or so: > > > > + Update included libs (e.g. move to log4j2) > > > > love to see how that goes on

Re: DISCUSSION: 1.0.0

nt HBASE-10479 discussions) > + Promote HTableInterface vs HTable, getting connections from HCM and > getting tables there. > > > > On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 11:20 AM, Stack wrote: > > > On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 11:15 AM, Steve Loughran > >wrote: &g

Re: DISCUSSION: 1.0.0

A few us have gotten the "We need a Replication Interface defined" along another channel. Agree this is a good discussion. I'll file issues to catch the above against the 0.99 label. (SighIf only we had a RM for 1.0.0...) St.Ack On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 11:21 AM, Nick Dimiduk wrote: > FY

Re: DISCUSSION: 1.0.0

On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 1:06 PM, Enis Söztutar wrote: > > (SighIf only we had a RM for 1.0.0...) > > Thanks Stack for bringing this up. I actually want to volunteer as an RM > for 1.0 release. We can do a 0.99 release first as a dev release, then turn > 0.99.x into 1.0

Re: DISCUSSION: 1.0.0

On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 2:40 PM, Enis Söztutar wrote: > > > > > > I think it'd be great if you did it Enis. It looks like the old-guard > RMs > > are up for helping out too (going by comments above). > > > > Since this is 1.0, we would need help from everybody! > > Amen. > > > > > Do we have

DISCUSSION: Enis for 1.0.0 RM

Over on the tail of concurrent thread 'DISCUSSION: 1.0.0', Enis volunteered (again) as 1.0.0 Release Manager. Unless objection, I'd say let this be so. We could run a vote but my thinking is that any one interested in RM'ing can just volunteer to do the next one; it's healthy spreading the RM rol

Re: The 3rd HBase 0.98.0 release candidate (RC2) is available for download

+1 (again). Ran RC on the hadoop 2.3.0 RC under a load. Seems fine (The httpserver stuff is all good). Ran asychbase test suite against the candidate. It found a change in semantics from 0.96 -- see tail of HBASE-10252 -- but I think we just doc the new behavior and move on. TSDB 2.0 seems to

Re: [ANNOUNCE] Apache HBase 0.98.0 is now available for download

Good on you for making a fat release andrew Stack On Feb 16, 2014 5:49 PM, "Andrew Purtell" wrote: > hbase-0.98.0 is now available for download [0] from the Apache mirrors and > its artifacts are available in the Apache Maven repository. > > Apache HBase is a scalable,

Re: Cleanup HTable public interface

On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 3:03 PM, Nick Dimiduk wrote: > HBASE-6580 replaced the preferred means of HTableInterface acquisition to > the HConnection#getTable factory methods. HBASE-9117 removes the > HConnection cache, placing the burden of responsible connection cleanup on > whomever acquires it.

Re: Why doesn't KeyValue.equals/CellComparator compare the values?

On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 8:31 PM, Matt Corgan wrote: > But maybe one of the committers could add a sentence to emphasize that > value is excluded. > > We should underline that data is not considered comparing Cells (KeyValues). Apart from the fact that it could make for some interesting perf

TestSecureExportSnapshot failing regularly on hadoop 1

Since these two went in: 1. HBASE-10608 Acquire the FS Delegation Token for Secure ExportSnapshot (detail ) 2. HBASE-10436

DISCUSS: We need a mascot, a totem HBASE-4920

Our Esteban reminded me of this old issue today voting we just take on an Orca as our mascot: Unless objection, I'll just put up https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/attachment/12505693/Orca_479990801.jpgas our mascot from here on out and close out this two year old item. St.Ack

Re: DISCUSS: We need a mascot, a totem HBASE-4920

On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 9:14 AM, Nick Dimiduk wrote: > On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 12:14 AM, Nicolas Liochon > wrote: > > > +1 for the Orca. > > Personally, I like this one: > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/attachment/12511412/HBase%20Orca%20Logo.jpg > > > As do I. > > My thought is tha

Re: DISCUSS: We need a mascot, a totem HBASE-4920

On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 2:37 PM, lars hofhansl wrote: > Let's do it as long as we're not calling it a "fish". > > +1 > > I promise not to call the cute little killer a 'fish' going forward. "I was wondering if we can change the color a little bit? The plain white of the bottom doesn't play well

Re: DISCUSS: We need a mascot, a totem HBASE-4920

On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 2:37 PM, lars hofhansl wrote: > Let's do it as long as we're not calling it a "fish". > > +1 > > I promise not to call the cute little killer a 'fish' going forward. "I was wondering if we can change the color a little bit? The plain white of the bottom doesn't play well

Re: DISCUSS: We need a mascot, a totem HBASE-4920

On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 2:18 AM, Nicolas Liochon wrote: > Yes, let's decide first on the animal itself (well we're done it seems), > and use another discussion thread for the picture. > > Agreed. We've decided on the mascot (Hurray!). Now for the representation. Will do in another thread. I th

Re: Hadoop1 support in 0.98/1.0

is not enough time passed to drop support I feel. > > > > This makes a lot of sense for 0.94. That is our (un)official (?) > long-term-stable release. > > The 0.96 "singularity" was released around the same time as Hadoop 2.2, > certainly our 0.98 was, and since the

Re: Hadoop1 support in 0.98/1.0

On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 11:51 AM, lars hofhansl wrote: > I suppose the next question is: Do we intentionally drop it, or just not > spend any additional time on it? (I.e. some new features might not work > with Hadoop-1, etc). > We could keep the -hadoop1 test suites running and fix failures, but

Re: Hadoop1 support in 0.98/1.0

On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 3:11 PM, Enis Söztutar wrote: > In the matrix, we have NS = Not supported, and NT = Not tested. > > Just to say that there is no NS, its X: http://hbase.apache.org/book.html#hadoop > We can go 0.98 with hadoop 1 = NT. Currently it is X. Do we want to go back up to NT

Re: Hadoop1 support in 0.98/1.0

On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 3:29 PM, Enis Söztutar wrote: ... > > > Currently it is X. Do we want to go back up to NT? > > > > I thought we did not explicitly decide to be that case (see my question in > the first email in the thread). It is X possibly because we overlooked. We > are still releasing

Re: Request to review HBASE-8304

It looks like your issue is getting some loving now On Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 10:01 AM, haosdent wrote: > Hi, folks. Could anyone help me to review this patch > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-8304? Another newbie question. > If I want to patch this to 0.94.18 not only trunk, what

Please welcome our newest committer, Mr. Honghua Feng

Please welcome our latest committer, 冯宏华. He has contributed some sweet patches since he started hanging out in these parts. Keep up the great work Honghua. St.Ack

Re: Publish 0.99.0-SNAPSHOT to Apache snapshots

On Wed, Mar 12, 2014 at 3:35 PM, Ted Yu wrote: > Here is my analysis: > > MiniDFSCluster.java is in hadoop-minicluster module. > If pom.xml points to hadoop 2.3, MiniDFSCluster.java would reference > StorageType.java > which was added on 2014-01-06. > StorageType.java was not in hadoop 2.2 releas

Re: Publish 0.99.0-SNAPSHOT to Apache snapshots

On Wed, Mar 12, 2014 at 3:52 PM, Nick Dimiduk wrote: > On Wed, Mar 12, 2014 at 3:46 PM, Stack wrote: > > > Is it in the published SNAPSHOT pom? > > > Push a new SNAPSHOT? Let me know if you want me to do it sir. St.Ack

0.96.2RC coming...

I'll put up an RC in next day or so (I know I keep promising it and that this RC will be concurrent w/ 0.98.1RC'ing). All important issues have been resolved I believe and it seems stable in local runnings here. If anything you'd like to get in, please speak up. Thanks, St.Ack

Re: 0.96.2RC coming...

Good by me Mr. Nick. On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 5:06 PM, Nick Dimiduk wrote: > HBASE-10741 will go in as soon as BuildBot replies. > > > On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 4:50 PM, Stack wrote: > > > I'll put up an RC in next day or so (I know I keep promising it and that > &

Re: Releases tests....

On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 7:00 AM, Jean-Marc Spaggiari < jean-m...@spaggiari.org> wrote: > Hi Shaohui, > > There is no tests list for a release. Goal is to have everyone testing > different things. If we have a list and all test the same things, we might > miss some issues. > > Lars tried having us

Re: ClusterConnection package private

On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 12:22 PM, Jimmy Xiang wrote: > In implementing HBASE-10569 (co-locating meta and master), I run into some > issue with the connections. > > The issue is that ClusterConnection is package private (on purpose). I have > to create an adapter (see the patch here > https://revi

Re: ClusterConnection package private

On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 1:22 PM, Jimmy Xiang wrote: > That means there will be many small meta regions. If we just have one > instance of each region, that should help. But we are moving towards HA > regions, right? > > Even if the region is 'HA', there will be an indirection. So question stands

Re: PreCommit-HBASE-Build failed for too many times

On Tue, Mar 18, 2014 at 8:15 PM, Ted Yu wrote: > Please take a look at HBASE-10787. > The question was about TestHCM being a zombie in precommits, not about how long it runs which seems to be what HBASE-10787 is doing. Is there something I am missing? Thanks, St.Ack

ANNOUNCE: The first hbase-0.96.2 release candidate is available for download

hbase-0.96.2RC0 is the first release candidate for hbase-0.96.2. It is a bug fix release that includes 129 fixes [1] since hbase-0.96.1 (from 41 distinct contributors). You can download the release candidate here: http://people.apache.org/~stack/hbase-0.96.2RC0/ It is staged in an apache

Re: PreCommit-HBASE-Build failed for too many times

o follow how TestHCM is being fingered as the zombie. Do we have stack traces catching it in its zombie role? Usually we add timeout annotations to suspected go-zombie tests so they'll timeout rather than go zombie. I do not see that in the patch IIRC. St.Ack

FYI: I'm messing w/ test-patch.sh

hadoopqa is not working at mo. while I mess. Will restore when done. St.Ack

Re: ANNOUNCE: The first hbase-0.96.2 release candidate is available for download

Thats wrong. Let me fix. Thanks JMS (Enjoy your vacation!) St.Ack On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 6:24 PM, Jean-Marc Spaggiari < jean-m...@spaggiari.org> wrote: > Hi Stack, > > Files in the folders are called "hbase-0.96.0-hadoop2-bin.tar.gz". Should > it be "hbase-0

Re: ANNOUNCE: The first hbase-0.96.2 release candidate is available for download

Sinking the RC. I made a mistake making the target version which I though I could just rejigger and then repackage RC0 but playing w/ RC0, I was unable to build (forgot to add a tracing.xml to the docs). Making RC1 St.Ack On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 9:20 PM, Stack wrote: > Thats wrong.

ANNOUNCE: The second hbase-0.96.2 release candiate (WAS --> Fwd: ANNOUNCE: The first hbase-0.96.2 release candidate is available for download

Here is RC1. Its the same as RC0 only it is properly named and I svn add'd a bit of missing doc. You can download it here: http://people.apache.org/~stack/hbase-0.96.2RC1/ It is up in a staging maven repository here: https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachehbase

Re: Regressions on upgrading from 0.94 to 0.96

On Sun, Mar 23, 2014 at 9:32 PM, Ishan Chhabra wrote: > When looking at HBASE-8063< > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-8063>, > I noticed that it was backported to 0.94 > (HBASE-8198) > but not to 0.96. I don't know if this was intention

Re: Regressions on upgrading from 0.94 to 0.96

On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 11:44 AM, lars hofhansl wrote: > Yeah. Sorry. That's not good. I usually make sure that does not happen, > but I missed that one. > > I don't know what to do about issues like this. The RM's can't possibly > watch all issues. Another area where I find this a lot is with bu

Re: ANNOUNCE: The second hbase-0.96.2 release candiate (WAS --> Fwd: ANNOUNCE: The first hbase-0.96.2 release candidate is available for download

Sinking because it is missing HBASE-10819, "Backport HBASE-8063 (Filter HFiles based on first/last key) into 0.96" Let me put up a new RC in a few. St.Ack On Sun, Mar 23, 2014 at 10:45 AM, Stack wrote: > Here is RC1. Its the same as RC0 only it is properly named and I svn >

ANNOUNCE: The third hbase-0.96.2 release candidate (WAS --> Re: ANNOUNCE: The second hbase-0.96.2 release candiate (WAS --> Fwd: ANNOUNCE: The first hbase-0.96.2 release candidate is available for dow

The third release candidate for hbase-0.96.2 is available here: http://people.apache.org/~stack/hbase-0.96.2RC2/ and up in a staging memory repository here: https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachehbase-1012 This RC has two fixes beyond RC0 and RC1: HBASE-10819 "(

<    1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   >