The first hbase 0.92.1 release candidate is available for download:

 http://people.apache.org/~stack/hbase-0.92.1-candidate-0/

I've posted a secure and an insecure tarball built by jenkins.

This is for the most part a bug fix release.   Here is what has been fixed
since 0.92.0:

 https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=12310753&version=12318551

You can do a rolling restart to get your 0.92.0 HBase up on this RC.

Should we release this candidate as hbase 0.92.1?  Take it for a spin.
Check out the doc.  Vote +1/-1 by March 16th, 2012.

Yours,
St.Ack

I wanted to validate this release.
But all the clusters I have access to run hadoop 0.22

Since the tar ball was built based on hadoop 1.0, I am not sure what to do
here.

Cheers

On Fri, Mar 9, 2012 at 1:50 PM, Stack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> The first hbase 0.92.1 release candidate is available for download:
>
>  http://people.apache.org/~stack/hbase-0.92.1-candidate-0/
>
> I've posted a secure and an insecure tarball built by jenkins.
>
> This is for the most part a bug fix release.   Here is what has been fixed
> since 0.92.0:
>
>
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=12310753&version=12318551
>
> You can do a rolling restart to get your 0.92.0 HBase up on this RC.
>
> Should we release this candidate as hbase 0.92.1?  Take it for a spin.
> Check out the doc.  Vote +1/-1 by March 16th, 2012.
>
> Yours,
> St.Ack
>

On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 8:03 PM, Ted Yu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I wanted to validate this release.
> But all the clusters I have access to run hadoop 0.22
>
> Since the tar ball was built based on hadoop 1.0, I am not sure what to do
> here.
>

Download the tar ball, replace the bundled hadoop under the lib dir
with your hadoop 0.22 version and then run it on an hadoop 0.22
cluster?  If its as good/bad as 0.92.x, you should be able to +1.  See
end of this section: http://hbase.apache.org/book.html#hadoop
Thanks,
St.Ack

I assume we should use 'mvn -Dhadoop.profile=22' to build HBase jar for
deployment.

Since it would be a different jar, I wonder whether the vote would count.

Cheers

On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 8:15 PM, Stack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 8:03 PM, Ted Yu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I wanted to validate this release.
> > But all the clusters I have access to run hadoop 0.22
> >
> > Since the tar ball was built based on hadoop 1.0, I am not sure what to
> do
> > here.
> >
>
> Download the tar ball, replace the bundled hadoop under the lib dir
> with your hadoop 0.22 version and then run it on an hadoop 0.22
> cluster?  If its as good/bad as 0.92.x, you should be able to +1.  See
> end of this section: http://hbase.apache.org/book.html#hadoop
> Thanks,
> St.Ack
>

All ASF releases are in fact source releases, and the fact that we
provide binaries is technically "convenience", from what I've been
told. So, you can vote based on the source contents of the tarball --
if it compiles to something you feel is satisfactory for a release,
you can vote +1 even if you had to recompile.

Given that we're now moving to multiple builds, it may make sense to
have the release votes against source and also include a tarball for
1.0, 0.22, 0.23, etc.

-Todd

On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 8:33 PM, Ted Yu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I assume we should use 'mvn -Dhadoop.profile=22' to build HBase jar for
> deployment.
>
> Since it would be a different jar, I wonder whether the vote would count.
>
> Cheers
>
> On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 8:15 PM, Stack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 8:03 PM, Ted Yu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > I wanted to validate this release.
>> > But all the clusters I have access to run hadoop 0.22
>> >
>> > Since the tar ball was built based on hadoop 1.0, I am not sure what to
>> do
>> > here.
>> >
>>
>> Download the tar ball, replace the bundled hadoop under the lib dir
>> with your hadoop 0.22 version and then run it on an hadoop 0.22
>> cluster?  If its as good/bad as 0.92.x, you should be able to +1.  See
>> end of this section: http://hbase.apache.org/book.html#hadoop
>> Thanks,
>> St.Ack
>>

--
Todd Lipcon
Software Engineer, Cloudera

Hi

We tried out 0.92.1 with Hadoop-0.23.1 and it worked fine.

Tried out things like bulk load, puts, scans on around 1000 regions
including some long runs.  It turned out to be fine.  If running with 0.23.1
is ok this RC am  +1.
Regards
Ram

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ted Yu [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2012 9:04 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: ANN: The first hbase 0.92.1 release candidate is available
> for download
>
> I assume we should use 'mvn -Dhadoop.profile=22' to build HBase jar for
> deployment.
>
> Since it would be a different jar, I wonder whether the vote would
> count.
>
> Cheers
>
> On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 8:15 PM, Stack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 8:03 PM, Ted Yu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > I wanted to validate this release.
> > > But all the clusters I have access to run hadoop 0.22
> > >
> > > Since the tar ball was built based on hadoop 1.0, I am not sure
> what to
> > do
> > > here.
> > >
> >
> > Download the tar ball, replace the bundled hadoop under the lib dir
> > with your hadoop 0.22 version and then run it on an hadoop 0.22
> > cluster?  If its as good/bad as 0.92.x, you should be able to +1.
> See
> > end of this section: http://hbase.apache.org/book.html#hadoop
> > Thanks,
> > St.Ack
> >

Just curious:
https://builds.apache.org/view/G-L/view/HBase/job/HBase-TRUNK-on-Hadoop-23/configurehas
the following parameters:
-U clean -Dmaven.test.redirectTestOutputToFile=true -Dhadoop.profile=23
site assembly:assembly

HBase-TRUNK-on-Hadoop-23 build has never been green.

So ?

On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 9:01 PM, Ramkrishna.S.Vasudevan <
[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Hi
>
> We tried out 0.92.1 with Hadoop-0.23.1 and it worked fine.
>
> Tried out things like bulk load, puts, scans on around 1000 regions
> including some long runs.  It turned out to be fine.  If running with
> 0.23.1
> is ok this RC am  +1.
>
>
> Regards
> Ram
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Ted Yu [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2012 9:04 AM
> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Subject: Re: ANN: The first hbase 0.92.1 release candidate is available
> > for download
> >
> > I assume we should use 'mvn -Dhadoop.profile=22' to build HBase jar for
> > deployment.
> >
> > Since it would be a different jar, I wonder whether the vote would
> > count.
> >
> > Cheers
> >
> > On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 8:15 PM, Stack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 8:03 PM, Ted Yu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > I wanted to validate this release.
> > > > But all the clusters I have access to run hadoop 0.22
> > > >
> > > > Since the tar ball was built based on hadoop 1.0, I am not sure
> > what to
> > > do
> > > > here.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Download the tar ball, replace the bundled hadoop under the lib dir
> > > with your hadoop 0.22 version and then run it on an hadoop 0.22
> > > cluster?  If its as good/bad as 0.92.x, you should be able to +1.
> > See
> > > end of this section: http://hbase.apache.org/book.html#hadoop
> > > Thanks,
> > > St.Ack
> > >
>
>

On Fri, Mar 9, 2012 at 1:50 PM, Stack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Should we release this candidate as hbase 0.92.1?  Take it for a spin.
> Check out the doc.  Vote +1/-1 by March 16th, 2012.
>

+1

Downloaded it, checked md5, started it up, checked doc., loaded a bit
of data in, checked logs.  All seemed fine (but for HBASE-5595 which
we should fix for 0.92.2).

St.Ack

On Fri, Mar 9, 2012 at 1:50 PM, Stack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Should we release this candidate as hbase 0.92.1?  Take it for a spin.
> Check out the doc.  Vote +1/-1 by March 16th, 2012.
>

The vote passes w/ 3*+1.  I'll push it out later today.
St.Ack

+1

We're running in production with something that's very close to what's
in this release (those missing are 5552, 5523, and 4890).

I've also been banging quite heavily on what is now 0.92.1 in the past
few weeks.

Unless a dumb bug creeped in, I'm confident we will be able to call
this our current stable release.

J-D

On Fri, Mar 9, 2012 at 1:50 PM, Stack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The first hbase 0.92.1 release candidate is available for download:
>
>  http://people.apache.org/~stack/hbase-0.92.1-candidate-0/
>
> I've posted a secure and an insecure tarball built by jenkins.
>
> This is for the most part a bug fix release.   Here is what has been fixed
> since 0.92.0:
>
>  https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=12310753&version=12318551
>
> You can do a rolling restart to get your 0.92.0 HBase up on this RC.
>
> Should we release this candidate as hbase 0.92.1?  Take it for a spin.
> Check out the doc.  Vote +1/-1 by March 16th, 2012.
>
> Yours,
> St.Ack

5523 is marked for 0.94.

Did I miss something ?

On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 5:18 PM, Jean-Daniel Cryans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:

> +1
>
> We're running in production with something that's very close to what's
> in this release (those missing are 5552, 5523, and 4890).
>
> I've also been banging quite heavily on what is now 0.92.1 in the past
> few weeks.
>
> Unless a dumb bug creeped in, I'm confident we will be able to call
> this our current stable release.
>
> J-D
>
> On Fri, Mar 9, 2012 at 1:50 PM, Stack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > The first hbase 0.92.1 release candidate is available for download:
> >
> >  http://people.apache.org/~stack/hbase-0.92.1-candidate-0/
> >
> > I've posted a secure and an insecure tarball built by jenkins.
> >
> > This is for the most part a bug fix release.   Here is what has been
> fixed
> > since 0.92.0:
> >
> >
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=12310753&version=12318551
> >
> > You can do a rolling restart to get your 0.92.0 HBase up on this RC.
> >
> > Should we release this candidate as hbase 0.92.1?  Take it for a spin.
> > Check out the doc.  Vote +1/-1 by March 16th, 2012.
> >
> > Yours,
> > St.Ack
>

I meant to write 5537

On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 5:59 PM, Ted Yu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 5523 is marked for 0.94.
>
> Did I miss something ?
>
> On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 5:18 PM, Jean-Daniel Cryans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
>
>> +1
>>
>> We're running in production with something that's very close to what's
>> in this release (those missing are 5552, 5523, and 4890).
>>
>> I've also been banging quite heavily on what is now 0.92.1 in the past
>> few weeks.
>>
>> Unless a dumb bug creeped in, I'm confident we will be able to call
>> this our current stable release.
>>
>> J-D
>>
>> On Fri, Mar 9, 2012 at 1:50 PM, Stack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > The first hbase 0.92.1 release candidate is available for download:
>> >
>> >  http://people.apache.org/~stack/hbase-0.92.1-candidate-0/
>> >
>> > I've posted a secure and an insecure tarball built by jenkins.
>> >
>> > This is for the most part a bug fix release.   Here is what has been
>> fixed
>> > since 0.92.0:
>> >
>> >
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=12310753&version=12318551
>> >
>> > You can do a rolling restart to get your 0.92.0 HBase up on this RC.
>> >
>> > Should we release this candidate as hbase 0.92.1?  Take it for a spin.
>> > Check out the doc.  Vote +1/-1 by March 16th, 2012.
>> >
>> > Yours,
>> > St.Ack
>>