I've posted an hbase 0.20.6 release candidate 5 here:

 http://people.apache.org/~stack/hbase-0.20.6-candidate-1/

There have been 8 fixes since the release of hbase-0.20.5 [1].

Should we release this candidate as hbase 0.20.6?

Please take it for a test spin if you have a chance.  Vote closes
Monday July 26th.

Thanks,
Your HBase Team

1. http://su.pr/1kRdZN

For what it's worth, I've been running the 0.20 branch at r963948, which is
the same as this release candidate except for
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-2837.  Haven't had any problems.

Dave

On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 9:15 PM, Stack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> I've posted an hbase 0.20.6 release candidate 5 here:
>
>  http://people.apache.org/~stack/hbase-0.20.6-candidate-1/<http://people.apache.org/%7Estack/hbase-0.20.6-candidate-1/>
>
> There have been 8 fixes since the release of hbase-0.20.5 [1].
>
> Should we release this candidate as hbase 0.20.6?
>
> Please take it for a test spin if you have a chance.  Vote closes
> Monday July 26th.
>
> Thanks,
> Your HBase Team
>
> 1. http://su.pr/1kRdZN
>

That sounds like a +1 to me (smile).
St.Ack

On Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 9:09 AM, Dave Latham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> For what it's worth, I've been running the 0.20 branch at r963948, which is
> the same as this release candidate except for
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-2837.  Haven't had any problems.
>
> Dave
>
> On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 9:15 PM, Stack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> I've posted an hbase 0.20.6 release candidate 5 here:
>>
>>  http://people.apache.org/~stack/hbase-0.20.6-candidate-1/<http://people.apache.org/%7Estack/hbase-0.20.6-candidate-1/>
>>
>> There have been 8 fixes since the release of hbase-0.20.5 [1].
>>
>> Should we release this candidate as hbase 0.20.6?
>>
>> Please take it for a test spin if you have a chance.  Vote closes
>> Monday July 26th.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Your HBase Team
>>
>> 1. http://su.pr/1kRdZN
>>
>

I don't see HBASE-2473 among the 8 fixes of 0.20.6
I checked 0.20.5 source code and didn't seem to find the patch there either.

Please advise.

On Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 9:09 AM, Dave Latham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> For what it's worth, I've been running the 0.20 branch at r963948, which is
> the same as this release candidate except for
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-2837.  Haven't had any
> problems.
>
> Dave
>
> On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 9:15 PM, Stack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > I've posted an hbase 0.20.6 release candidate 5 here:
> >
> >  http://people.apache.org/~stack/hbase-0.20.6-candidate-1/<http://people.apache.org/%7Estack/hbase-0.20.6-candidate-1/>
> <http://people.apache.org/%7Estack/hbase-0.20.6-candidate-1/>
> >
> > There have been 8 fixes since the release of hbase-0.20.5 [1].
> >
> > Should we release this candidate as hbase 0.20.6?
> >
> > Please take it for a test spin if you have a chance.  Vote closes
> > Monday July 26th.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Your HBase Team
> >
> > 1. http://su.pr/1kRdZN
> >
>

Since HBASE-2473 is marked fixed for 0.21, some advice regarding the roadmap
for 0.21 vs. 0.20.6 vs 0.89 would help us decide which version to use.

Thanks

On Sat, Jul 24, 2010 at 10:08 PM, Ted Yu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> I don't see HBASE-2473 among the 8 fixes of 0.20.6
> I checked 0.20.5 source code and didn't seem to find the patch there
> either.
>
> Please advise.
>
>
> On Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 9:09 AM, Dave Latham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> For what it's worth, I've been running the 0.20 branch at r963948, which
>> is
>> the same as this release candidate except for
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-2837.  Haven't had any
>> problems.
>>
>> Dave
>>
>> On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 9:15 PM, Stack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> > I've posted an hbase 0.20.6 release candidate 5 here:
>> >
>> >  http://people.apache.org/~stack/hbase-0.20.6-candidate-1/<http://people.apache.org/%7Estack/hbase-0.20.6-candidate-1/>
>> <http://people.apache.org/%7Estack/hbase-0.20.6-candidate-1/>
>> >
>> > There have been 8 fixes since the release of hbase-0.20.5 [1].
>> >
>> > Should we release this candidate as hbase 0.20.6?
>> >
>> > Please take it for a test spin if you have a chance.  Vote closes
>> > Monday July 26th.
>> >
>> > Thanks,
>> > Your HBase Team
>> >
>> > 1. http://su.pr/1kRdZN
>> >
>>
>
>

HBASE-2473 is a new feature.  0.21 is equivalent to 0.89 and 0.90 (trunk).  0.89 are dev releases off trunk which will be release as 0.90.

0.20 branch is an old branch that will not have new features added to it, just bug fixes.  All new features should be done against trunk only.

http://hbaseblog.com/2010/07/04/hug11-hbase-0-90-preview-wrap-up/

There's more info about the versions in the deck on that blog post.

JG

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ted Yu [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Sunday, July 25, 2010 7:30 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Shall we release hbase-0.20.6 Release Candidate 1
> as hbase-0.20.6?
>
> Since HBASE-2473 is marked fixed for 0.21, some advice regarding the
> roadmap
> for 0.21 vs. 0.20.6 vs 0.89 would help us decide which version to use.
>
> Thanks
>
> On Sat, Jul 24, 2010 at 10:08 PM, Ted Yu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > I don't see HBASE-2473 among the 8 fixes of 0.20.6
> > I checked 0.20.5 source code and didn't seem to find the patch there
> > either.
> >
> > Please advise.
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 9:09 AM, Dave Latham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> >
> >> For what it's worth, I've been running the 0.20 branch at r963948,
> which
> >> is
> >> the same as this release candidate except for
> >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-2837.  Haven't had any
> >> problems.
> >>
> >> Dave
> >>
> >> On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 9:15 PM, Stack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>
> >> > I've posted an hbase 0.20.6 release candidate 5 here:
> >> >
> >> >  http://people.apache.org/~stack/hbase-0.20.6-candidate-
> 1/<http://people.apache.org/%7Estack/hbase-0.20.6-candidate-1/>
> >> <http://people.apache.org/%7Estack/hbase-0.20.6-candidate-1/>
> >> >
> >> > There have been 8 fixes since the release of hbase-0.20.5 [1].
> >> >
> >> > Should we release this candidate as hbase 0.20.6?
> >> >
> >> > Please take it for a test spin if you have a chance.  Vote closes
> >> > Monday July 26th.
> >> >
> >> > Thanks,
> >> > Your HBase Team
> >> >
> >> > 1. http://su.pr/1kRdZN
> >> >
> >>
> >
> >

Jonathan:
Is HBASE-2473 related to new load balancer in Master rewrite branch ?
Can you elaborate on the relationship between Master rewrite branch and 0.90
release ?

Thanks

On Sun, Jul 25, 2010 at 8:01 AM, Jonathan Gray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> HBASE-2473 is a new feature.  0.21 is equivalent to 0.89 and 0.90 (trunk).
>  0.89 are dev releases off trunk which will be release as 0.90.
>
> 0.20 branch is an old branch that will not have new features added to it,
> just bug fixes.  All new features should be done against trunk only.
>
> http://hbaseblog.com/2010/07/04/hug11-hbase-0-90-preview-wrap-up/
>
> There's more info about the versions in the deck on that blog post.
>
> JG
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Ted Yu [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > Sent: Sunday, July 25, 2010 7:30 AM
> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Subject: Re: [VOTE] Shall we release hbase-0.20.6 Release Candidate 1
> > as hbase-0.20.6?
> >
> > Since HBASE-2473 is marked fixed for 0.21, some advice regarding the
> > roadmap
> > for 0.21 vs. 0.20.6 vs 0.89 would help us decide which version to use.
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> > On Sat, Jul 24, 2010 at 10:08 PM, Ted Yu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > I don't see HBASE-2473 among the 8 fixes of 0.20.6
> > > I checked 0.20.5 source code and didn't seem to find the patch there
> > > either.
> > >
> > > Please advise.
> > >
> > >
> > > On Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 9:09 AM, Dave Latham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > >> For what it's worth, I've been running the 0.20 branch at r963948,
> > which
> > >> is
> > >> the same as this release candidate except for
> > >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-2837.  Haven't had any
> > >> problems.
> > >>
> > >> Dave
> > >>
> > >> On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 9:15 PM, Stack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> > I've posted an hbase 0.20.6 release candidate 5 here:
> > >> >
> > >> >  http://people.apache.org/~stack/hbase-0.20.6-candidate-<http://people.apache.org/%7Estack/hbase-0.20.6-candidate->
> > 1/<http://people.apache.org/%7Estack/hbase-0.20.6-candidate-1/>
> > >> <http://people.apache.org/%7Estack/hbase-0.20.6-candidate-1/>
> > >> >
> > >> > There have been 8 fixes since the release of hbase-0.20.5 [1].
> > >> >
> > >> > Should we release this candidate as hbase 0.20.6?
> > >> >
> > >> > Please take it for a test spin if you have a chance.  Vote closes
> > >> > Monday July 26th.
> > >> >
> > >> > Thanks,
> > >> > Your HBase Team
> > >> >
> > >> > 1. http://su.pr/1kRdZN
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >
> > >
>

Master rewrite branch is a feature branch off of trunk.

The plan is that once it is finished, it will be merged back into trunk and released as part of 0.90.

JG

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ted Yu [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Sunday, July 25, 2010 11:56 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Shall we release hbase-0.20.6 Release Candidate 1
> as hbase-0.20.6?
>
> Jonathan:
> Is HBASE-2473 related to new load balancer in Master rewrite branch ?
> Can you elaborate on the relationship between Master rewrite branch and
> 0.90
> release ?
>
> Thanks
>
> On Sun, Jul 25, 2010 at 8:01 AM, Jonathan Gray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> > HBASE-2473 is a new feature.  0.21 is equivalent to 0.89 and 0.90
> (trunk).
> >  0.89 are dev releases off trunk which will be release as 0.90.
> >
> > 0.20 branch is an old branch that will not have new features added to
> it,
> > just bug fixes.  All new features should be done against trunk only.
> >
> > http://hbaseblog.com/2010/07/04/hug11-hbase-0-90-preview-wrap-up/
> >
> > There's more info about the versions in the deck on that blog post.
> >
> > JG
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Ted Yu [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > > Sent: Sunday, July 25, 2010 7:30 AM
> > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > Subject: Re: [VOTE] Shall we release hbase-0.20.6 Release Candidate
> 1
> > > as hbase-0.20.6?
> > >
> > > Since HBASE-2473 is marked fixed for 0.21, some advice regarding
> the
> > > roadmap
> > > for 0.21 vs. 0.20.6 vs 0.89 would help us decide which version to
> use.
> > >
> > > Thanks
> > >
> > > On Sat, Jul 24, 2010 at 10:08 PM, Ted Yu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > > I don't see HBASE-2473 among the 8 fixes of 0.20.6
> > > > I checked 0.20.5 source code and didn't seem to find the patch
> there
> > > > either.
> > > >
> > > > Please advise.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 9:09 AM, Dave Latham
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> For what it's worth, I've been running the 0.20 branch at
> r963948,
> > > which
> > > >> is
> > > >> the same as this release candidate except for
> > > >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-2837.  Haven't had
> any
> > > >> problems.
> > > >>
> > > >> Dave
> > > >>
> > > >> On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 9:15 PM, Stack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> > I've posted an hbase 0.20.6 release candidate 5 here:
> > > >> >
> > > >> >  http://people.apache.org/~stack/hbase-0.20.6-candidate-
> <http://people.apache.org/%7Estack/hbase-0.20.6-candidate->
> > > 1/<http://people.apache.org/%7Estack/hbase-0.20.6-candidate-1/>
> > > >> <http://people.apache.org/%7Estack/hbase-0.20.6-candidate-1/>
> > > >> >
> > > >> > There have been 8 fixes since the release of hbase-0.20.5 [1].
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Should we release this candidate as hbase 0.20.6?
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Please take it for a test spin if you have a chance.  Vote
> closes
> > > >> > Monday July 26th.
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Thanks,
> > > >> > Your HBase Team
> > > >> >
> > > >> > 1. http://su.pr/1kRdZN
> > > >> >
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > >
> >

Hi:

There are errors with HBase.rb line 554 in 'get': undefined method 'to_java_bytes'. Will this be fixed in Hbase-0.20.6? The shell command 'get' for multiple columns does not work.  

Fuesane Cheng

-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Stack
Sent: Wednesday, July 21, 2010 1:38 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [VOTE] Shall we release hbase-0.20.6 Release Candidate 1 as hbase-0.20.6?

That sounds like a +1 to me (smile).
St.Ack

On Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 9:09 AM, Dave Latham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> For what it's worth, I've been running the 0.20 branch at r963948, which is
> the same as this release candidate except for
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-2837.  Haven't had any problems.
>
> Dave
>
> On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 9:15 PM, Stack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> I've posted an hbase 0.20.6 release candidate 5 here:
>>
>>  http://people.apache.org/~stack/hbase-0.20.6-candidate-1/<http://people.apache.org/%7Estack/hbase-0.20.6-candidate-1/>
>>
>> There have been 8 fixes since the release of hbase-0.20.5 [1].
>>
>> Should we release this candidate as hbase 0.20.6?
>>
>> Please take it for a test spin if you have a chance.  Vote closes
>> Monday July 26th.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Your HBase Team
>>
>> 1. http://su.pr/1kRdZN
>>
>
=============================================================================This communication, including attachments, is confidential, may be subject to legal privileges, and is intended for the sole use of the addressee. Any use, duplication, disclosure or dissemination of this communication, other than by the addressee, is prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete or destroy this communication and all copies.

On Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 1:31 PM, Cheng,Fuesane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi:
>
> There are errors with HBase.rb line 554 in 'get': undefined method 'to_java_bytes'. Will this be fixed in Hbase-0.20.6? The shell command 'get' for multiple columns does not work.
>

I don't think the above a blocker so insufficient sinking the
candidate.  We can fix in 0.20.7?

I'm +1 on releasing 0.20.6RC1 as 0.20.6.  I downloaded it, ran it and
checked documentation.  I'd run the candidate up on cluster and it
seemed no different to previous 0.20 releases.

St.Ack

+1, I downloaded the release, checked the documentation, ran a few
YCSB, everything's fine.

J-D

On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 9:15 PM, Stack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I've posted an hbase 0.20.6 release candidate 5 here:
>
>  http://people.apache.org/~stack/hbase-0.20.6-candidate-1/
>
> There have been 8 fixes since the release of hbase-0.20.5 [1].
>
> Should we release this candidate as hbase 0.20.6?
>
> Please take it for a test spin if you have a chance.  Vote closes
> Monday July 26th.
>
> Thanks,
> Your HBase Team
>
> 1. http://su.pr/1kRdZN
>

Can someone take a look at:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-2885

I think the three reported incidents were somehow related.

Thanks

On Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 1:31 PM, Cheng,Fuesane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Hi:
>
> There are errors with HBase.rb line 554 in 'get': undefined method
> 'to_java_bytes'. Will this be fixed in Hbase-0.20.6? The shell command 'get'
> for multiple columns does not work.
>
> Fuesane Cheng
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Stack
> Sent: Wednesday, July 21, 2010 1:38 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Shall we release hbase-0.20.6 Release Candidate 1 as
> hbase-0.20.6?
>
> That sounds like a +1 to me (smile).
> St.Ack
>
> On Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 9:09 AM, Dave Latham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > For what it's worth, I've been running the 0.20 branch at r963948, which
> is
> > the same as this release candidate except for
> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-2837.  Haven't had any
> problems.
> >
> > Dave
> >
> > On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 9:15 PM, Stack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >> I've posted an hbase 0.20.6 release candidate 5 here:
> >>
> >>  http://people.apache.org/~stack/hbase-0.20.6-candidate-1/<http://people.apache.org/%7Estack/hbase-0.20.6-candidate-1/>
> <http://people.apache.org/%7Estack/hbase-0.20.6-candidate-1/>
> >>
> >> There have been 8 fixes since the release of hbase-0.20.5 [1].
> >>
> >> Should we release this candidate as hbase 0.20.6?
> >>
> >> Please take it for a test spin if you have a chance.  Vote closes
> >> Monday July 26th.
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >> Your HBase Team
> >>
> >> 1. http://su.pr/1kRdZN
> >>
> >
>
>
>
> =============================================================================> This communication, including attachments, is confidential, may be subject
> to legal privileges, and is intended for the sole use of the addressee. Any
> use, duplication, disclosure or dissemination of this communication, other
> than by the addressee, is prohibited. If you have received this
> communication in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete or
> destroy this communication and all copies.
>
>

Hey Ted:

I don't think issues in shell, usually, are of substance enough to
sink a release.

Can you be more specific in HBASE-2885?  As filed, its a bit of a
grab-all of recent issues up in the mailing list.  We can do a 0.20.7
soon after 0.20.6 no problem.

St.Ack
On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 7:13 PM, Ted Yu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Can someone take a look at:
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-2885
>
> I think the three reported incidents were somehow related.
>
> Thanks
>
> On Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 1:31 PM, Cheng,Fuesane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Hi:
>>
>> There are errors with HBase.rb line 554 in 'get': undefined method
>> 'to_java_bytes'. Will this be fixed in Hbase-0.20.6? The shell command 'get'
>> for multiple columns does not work.
>>
>> Fuesane Cheng
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Stack
>> Sent: Wednesday, July 21, 2010 1:38 PM
>> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Shall we release hbase-0.20.6 Release Candidate 1 as
>> hbase-0.20.6?
>>
>> That sounds like a +1 to me (smile).
>> St.Ack
>>
>> On Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 9:09 AM, Dave Latham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > For what it's worth, I've been running the 0.20 branch at r963948, which
>> is
>> > the same as this release candidate except for
>> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-2837.  Haven't had any
>> problems.
>> >
>> > Dave
>> >
>> > On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 9:15 PM, Stack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >
>> >> I've posted an hbase 0.20.6 release candidate 5 here:
>> >>
>> >>  http://people.apache.org/~stack/hbase-0.20.6-candidate-1/<http://people.apache.org/%7Estack/hbase-0.20.6-candidate-1/>
>> <http://people.apache.org/%7Estack/hbase-0.20.6-candidate-1/>
>> >>
>> >> There have been 8 fixes since the release of hbase-0.20.5 [1].
>> >>
>> >> Should we release this candidate as hbase 0.20.6?
>> >>
>> >> Please take it for a test spin if you have a chance.  Vote closes
>> >> Monday July 26th.
>> >>
>> >> Thanks,
>> >> Your HBase Team
>> >>
>> >> 1. http://su.pr/1kRdZN
>> >>
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>> =============================================================================>> This communication, including attachments, is confidential, may be subject
>> to legal privileges, and is intended for the sole use of the addressee. Any
>> use, duplication, disclosure or dissemination of this communication, other
>> than by the addressee, is prohibited. If you have received this
>> communication in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete or
>> destroy this communication and all copies.
>>
>>
>

+1

I ran a 30GB import test and counted it - worked great on 15 nodes.

-ryah

On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 9:15 PM, Stack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I've posted an hbase 0.20.6 release candidate 5 here:
>
>  http://people.apache.org/~stack/hbase-0.20.6-candidate-1/
>
> There have been 8 fixes since the release of hbase-0.20.5 [1].
>
> Should we release this candidate as hbase 0.20.6?
>
> Please take it for a test spin if you have a chance.  Vote closes
> Monday July 26th.
>
> Thanks,
> Your HBase Team
>
> 1. http://su.pr/1kRdZN
>