Hi,
The second 0.92.2 RC is available for download here:
 http://people.apache.org/~tedyu/hbase-0.92.2-rc1/<http://people.apache.org/%7Etedyu/hbase-0.92.2-rc0/>

I signed the tarball. My gpg key (signed by stack) is available from
pgp.mit.edu. Key id:
F48B08A4<http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0xCBC29E86F48B08A4>

HBase 0.92 is the stable release.

You can do a rolling restart to get your 0.92.x HBase up on this 0.92.2 RC.

The full list of changes is available here:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?version=12319888&styleName=Text&projectId=12310753&Create=Create&atl_token=A5KQ-2QAV-T4JA-FDED|20dd5912cca928036b1ca12dd6edb463220c0a85|lin<https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=12310753&version=12316419>

Please take this RC for a spin, check out the doc, etc, and vote +1/-1 by
Sept. 12th on whether we should release this as 0.92.2.

Thanks.

Ted Yu

A gentle reminder that Sept. 12th is approaching.

I am +1 on this RC: I have done some basic checking in a dev cluster and
everything was working.

Have a nice weekend.

On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 8:58 AM, Ted Yu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Hi,
> The second 0.92.2 RC is available for download here:
>  http://people.apache.org/~tedyu/hbase-0.92.2-rc1/<http://people.apache.org/%7Etedyu/hbase-0.92.2-rc0/>
>
> I signed the tarball. My gpg key (signed by stack) is available from
> pgp.mit.edu. Key id: F48B08A4<http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0xCBC29E86F48B08A4>
>
> HBase 0.92 is the stable release.
>
> You can do a rolling restart to get your 0.92.x HBase up on this 0.92.2RC.
>
> The full list of changes is available here:
>
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?version=12319888&styleName=Text&projectId=12310753&Create=Create&atl_token=A5KQ-2QAV-T4JA-FDED|20dd5912cca928036b1ca12dd6edb463220c0a85|lin<https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=12310753&version=12316419>
>
> Please take this RC for a spin, check out the doc, etc, and vote +1/-1 by
> Sept. 12th on whether we should release this as 0.92.2.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Ted Yu
>

0.92.2 has been running for a couple of weeks on all of our production
data centers. No issues yet.

-Shrijeet

On Fri, Sep 7, 2012 at 11:00 AM, Ted Yu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> A gentle reminder that Sept. 12th is approaching.
>
> I am +1 on this RC: I have done some basic checking in a dev cluster and
> everything was working.
>
> Have a nice weekend.
>
> On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 8:58 AM, Ted Yu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>> The second 0.92.2 RC is available for download here:
>>  http://people.apache.org/~tedyu/hbase-0.92.2-rc1/<http://people.apache.org/%7Etedyu/hbase-0.92.2-rc0/>
>>
>> I signed the tarball. My gpg key (signed by stack) is available from
>> pgp.mit.edu. Key id: F48B08A4<http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0xCBC29E86F48B08A4>
>>
>> HBase 0.92 is the stable release.
>>
>> You can do a rolling restart to get your 0.92.x HBase up on this 0.92.2RC.
>>
>> The full list of changes is available here:
>>
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?version=12319888&styleName=Text&projectId=12310753&Create=Create&atl_token=A5KQ-2QAV-T4JA-FDED|20dd5912cca928036b1ca12dd6edb463220c0a85|lin<https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=12310753&version=12316419>
>>
>> Please take this RC for a spin, check out the doc, etc, and vote +1/-1 by
>> Sept. 12th on whether we should release this as 0.92.2.
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>> Ted Yu
>>

I tested 0.92.2 this weekend under heavy workload and induced master/region
server fail-over. No issues were observed.

Kind regards,
Aditya Kishore

On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 11:43 AM, Shrijeet Paliwal
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:

> 0.92.2 has been running for a couple of weeks on all of our production
> data centers. No issues yet.
>
> -Shrijeet
>
> On Fri, Sep 7, 2012 at 11:00 AM, Ted Yu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > A gentle reminder that Sept. 12th is approaching.
> >
> > I am +1 on this RC: I have done some basic checking in a dev cluster and
> > everything was working.
> >
> > Have a nice weekend.
> >
> > On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 8:58 AM, Ted Yu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >> Hi,
> >> The second 0.92.2 RC is available for download here:
> >>  http://people.apache.org/~tedyu/hbase-0.92.2-rc1/<
> http://people.apache.org/%7Etedyu/hbase-0.92.2-rc0/>
> >>
> >> I signed the tarball. My gpg key (signed by stack) is available from
> >> pgp.mit.edu. Key id: F48B08A4<
> http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0xCBC29E86F48B08A4>
> >>
> >> HBase 0.92 is the stable release.
> >>
> >> You can do a rolling restart to get your 0.92.x HBase up on this
> 0.92.2RC.
> >>
> >> The full list of changes is available here:
> >>
> >>
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?version=12319888&styleName=Text&projectId=12310753&Create=Create&atl_token=A5KQ-2QAV-T4JA-FDED|20dd5912cca928036b1ca12dd6edb463220c0a85|lin
> <
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=12310753&version=12316419
> >
> >>
> >> Please take this RC for a spin, check out the doc, etc, and vote +1/-1
> by
> >> Sept. 12th on whether we should release this as 0.92.2.
> >>
> >> Thanks.
> >>
> >> Ted Yu
> >>
>

Aditya / Shrijeet:

Thanks for the update.

Appreciate it.

On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 11:48 AM, Aditya <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> I tested 0.92.2 this weekend under heavy workload and induced master/region
> server fail-over. No issues were observed.
>
> Kind regards,
> Aditya Kishore
>
> On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 11:43 AM, Shrijeet Paliwal
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
>
> > 0.92.2 has been running for a couple of weeks on all of our production
> > data centers. No issues yet.
> >
> > -Shrijeet
> >
> > On Fri, Sep 7, 2012 at 11:00 AM, Ted Yu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > A gentle reminder that Sept. 12th is approaching.
> > >
> > > I am +1 on this RC: I have done some basic checking in a dev cluster
> and
> > > everything was working.
> > >
> > > Have a nice weekend.
> > >
> > > On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 8:58 AM, Ted Yu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > >> Hi,
> > >> The second 0.92.2 RC is available for download here:
> > >>  http://people.apache.org/~tedyu/hbase-0.92.2-rc1/<
> > http://people.apache.org/%7Etedyu/hbase-0.92.2-rc0/>
> > >>
> > >> I signed the tarball. My gpg key (signed by stack) is available from
> > >> pgp.mit.edu. Key id: F48B08A4<
> > http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0xCBC29E86F48B08A4>
> > >>
> > >> HBase 0.92 is the stable release.
> > >>
> > >> You can do a rolling restart to get your 0.92.x HBase up on this
> > 0.92.2RC.
> > >>
> > >> The full list of changes is available here:
> > >>
> > >>
> >
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?version=12319888&styleName=Text&projectId=12310753&Create=Create&atl_token=A5KQ-2QAV-T4JA-FDED|20dd5912cca928036b1ca12dd6edb463220c0a85|lin
> > <
> >
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=12310753&version=12316419
> > >
> > >>
> > >> Please take this RC for a spin, check out the doc, etc, and vote +1/-1
> > by
> > >> Sept. 12th on whether we should release this as 0.92.2.
> > >>
> > >> Thanks.
> > >>
> > >> Ted Yu
> > >>
> >
>

With 3 +1's and no -1, 0.92.2 RC1 passes.

I will announce 0.92.2 release tomorrow.

On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 11:48 AM, Aditya <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> I tested 0.92.2 this weekend under heavy workload and induced master/region
> server fail-over. No issues were observed.
>
> Kind regards,
> Aditya Kishore
>
> On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 11:43 AM, Shrijeet Paliwal
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
>
> > 0.92.2 has been running for a couple of weeks on all of our production
> > data centers. No issues yet.
> >
> > -Shrijeet
> >
> > On Fri, Sep 7, 2012 at 11:00 AM, Ted Yu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > A gentle reminder that Sept. 12th is approaching.
> > >
> > > I am +1 on this RC: I have done some basic checking in a dev cluster
> and
> > > everything was working.
> > >
> > > Have a nice weekend.
> > >
> > > On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 8:58 AM, Ted Yu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > >> Hi,
> > >> The second 0.92.2 RC is available for download here:
> > >>  http://people.apache.org/~tedyu/hbase-0.92.2-rc1/<
> > http://people.apache.org/%7Etedyu/hbase-0.92.2-rc0/>
> > >>
> > >> I signed the tarball. My gpg key (signed by stack) is available from
> > >> pgp.mit.edu. Key id: F48B08A4<
> > http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0xCBC29E86F48B08A4>
> > >>
> > >> HBase 0.92 is the stable release.
> > >>
> > >> You can do a rolling restart to get your 0.92.x HBase up on this
> > 0.92.2RC.
> > >>
> > >> The full list of changes is available here:
> > >>
> > >>
> >
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?version=12319888&styleName=Text&projectId=12310753&Create=Create&atl_token=A5KQ-2QAV-T4JA-FDED|20dd5912cca928036b1ca12dd6edb463220c0a85|lin
> > <
> >
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=12310753&version=12316419
> > >
> > >>
> > >> Please take this RC for a spin, check out the doc, etc, and vote +1/-1
> > by
> > >> Sept. 12th on whether we should release this as 0.92.2.
> > >>
> > >> Thanks.
> > >>
> > >> Ted Yu
> > >>
> >
>

On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 9:18 PM, Ted Yu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> With 3 +1's and no -1, 0.92.2 RC1 passes.
>

Usually it takes 3 +1s by committers.  Maybe hang a little while to
get another one or so?
St.Ack

On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 9:32 PM, Stack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 9:18 PM, Ted Yu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> With 3 +1's and no -1, 0.92.2 RC1 passes.
>>

I am +1 on releasing this tgz as 0.92.2.

I verified the md5 and the signature.  Layout when I untar looks good
(doc, api).  Started it standalone.  UI looks fine.  Loaded millions
of rows and counted them.  Checked logs.  Checked its basically
splitting.

There is a bit of a problem in that it is missing the security tgz
(see 0.92.1:  http://apache.mirrors.tds.net/hbase/hbase-0.92.1/).
What you want to do about that?

St.Ack

Thanks for the reminder, Stack.

I have copied the security tar ball to hbase-0.92.2-rc1 directory.

On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 10:24 PM, Stack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 9:32 PM, Stack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 9:18 PM, Ted Yu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> With 3 +1's and no -1, 0.92.2 RC1 passes.
> >>
>
> I am +1 on releasing this tgz as 0.92.2.
>
> I verified the md5 and the signature.  Layout when I untar looks good
> (doc, api).  Started it standalone.  UI looks fine.  Loaded millions
> of rows and counted them.  Checked logs.  Checked its basically
> splitting.
>
> There is a bit of a problem in that it is missing the security tgz
> (see 0.92.1:  http://apache.mirrors.tds.net/hbase/hbase-0.92.1/).
> What you want to do about that?
>
> St.Ack
>

> Usually it takes 3 +1s by committers.  Maybe hang a little while to
> get another one or so?

Little nit, it's actually 3 PMC members. Historically committers were
also PMC members but this changed recently.

I'm referring to http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html

We may want to eventually do like Hadoop and have our own bylaws:
http://hadoop.apache.org/bylaws.html

J-D

We're having more and more releases across 0.92, 0.94 and soon 0.96
branches.
It would be wise to revisit the historical convention.

Thanks for bringing this up, J-D.

On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 9:33 AM, Jean-Daniel Cryans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:

> > Usually it takes 3 +1s by committers.  Maybe hang a little while to
> > get another one or so?
>
> Little nit, it's actually 3 PMC members. Historically committers were
> also PMC members but this changed recently.
>
> I'm referring to http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html
>
> We may want to eventually do like Hadoop and have our own bylaws:
> http://hadoop.apache.org/bylaws.html
>
> J-D
>

I'm +1'ish

Spun up a 0.92.1 cluster wrote some data.  Then spun up a 0.92.2RC and
everything worked.
Ran LoadTestTool while killing region servers.  Everything recovered well.
Ran PerformanceEvaluation everything went well
However when trying to manually split a table while tests were running
I was unable to.  On investigating more I found that manual splits
appear to be broken in 0.92.  So I filed HBASE-6767.  I don't think
it's enough to sink the rc but it was something that I noticed.
On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 9:47 AM, Ted Yu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> We're having more and more releases across 0.92, 0.94 and soon 0.96
> branches.
> It would be wise to revisit the historical convention.
>
> Thanks for bringing this up, J-D.
>
> On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 9:33 AM, Jean-Daniel Cryans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
>
>> > Usually it takes 3 +1s by committers.  Maybe hang a little while to
>> > get another one or so?
>>
>> Little nit, it's actually 3 PMC members. Historically committers were
>> also PMC members but this changed recently.
>>
>> I'm referring to http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html
>>
>> We may want to eventually do like Hadoop and have our own bylaws:
>> http://hadoop.apache.org/bylaws.html
>>
>> J-D
>>

So it looks like I must have just caught a region as it was moving or
something.  I can't seem to re-produce that error. So I'm fully +1.
Sorry for the false alarm.

On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 11:55 AM, Elliott Clark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm +1'ish
>
> Spun up a 0.92.1 cluster wrote some data.  Then spun up a 0.92.2RC and
> everything worked.
> Ran LoadTestTool while killing region servers.  Everything recovered well.
> Ran PerformanceEvaluation everything went well
>
>
> However when trying to manually split a table while tests were running
> I was unable to.  On investigating more I found that manual splits
> appear to be broken in 0.92.  So I filed HBASE-6767.  I don't think
> it's enough to sink the rc but it was something that I noticed.
>
>
> On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 9:47 AM, Ted Yu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> We're having more and more releases across 0.92, 0.94 and soon 0.96
>> branches.
>> It would be wise to revisit the historical convention.
>>
>> Thanks for bringing this up, J-D.
>>
>> On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 9:33 AM, Jean-Daniel Cryans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
>>
>>> > Usually it takes 3 +1s by committers.  Maybe hang a little while to
>>> > get another one or so?
>>>
>>> Little nit, it's actually 3 PMC members. Historically committers were
>>> also PMC members but this changed recently.
>>>
>>> I'm referring to http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html
>>>
>>> We may want to eventually do like Hadoop and have our own bylaws:
>>> http://hadoop.apache.org/bylaws.html
>>>
>>> J-D
>>>

Thanks Elliot for your validation effort.

Appreciate it.

On Sep 12, 2012, at 12:07 PM, Elliott Clark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> So it looks like I must have just caught a region as it was moving or
> something.  I can't seem to re-produce that error. So I'm fully +1.
> Sorry for the false alarm.
>
> On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 11:55 AM, Elliott Clark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I'm +1'ish
>>
>> Spun up a 0.92.1 cluster wrote some data.  Then spun up a 0.92.2RC and
>> everything worked.
>> Ran LoadTestTool while killing region servers.  Everything recovered well.
>> Ran PerformanceEvaluation everything went well
>>
>>
>> However when trying to manually split a table while tests were running
>> I was unable to.  On investigating more I found that manual splits
>> appear to be broken in 0.92.  So I filed HBASE-6767.  I don't think
>> it's enough to sink the rc but it was something that I noticed.
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 9:47 AM, Ted Yu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> We're having more and more releases across 0.92, 0.94 and soon 0.96
>>> branches.
>>> It would be wise to revisit the historical convention.
>>>
>>> Thanks for bringing this up, J-D.
>>>
>>> On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 9:33 AM, Jean-Daniel Cryans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Usually it takes 3 +1s by committers.  Maybe hang a little while to
>>>>> get another one or so?
>>>>
>>>> Little nit, it's actually 3 PMC members. Historically committers were
>>>> also PMC members but this changed recently.
>>>>
>>>> I'm referring to http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html
>>>>
>>>> We may want to eventually do like Hadoop and have our own bylaws:
>>>> http://hadoop.apache.org/bylaws.html
>>>>
>>>> J-D
>>>>

J-D:
So far we have 2 +1 (binding) and 2 +1 (non-binding), no -1 on RC1.

Do you think I can roll this RC as 0.92.2 ?

Thanks

On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 12:07 PM, Elliott Clark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:

> So it looks like I must have just caught a region as it was moving or
> something.  I can't seem to re-produce that error. So I'm fully +1.
> Sorry for the false alarm.
>
> On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 11:55 AM, Elliott Clark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> > I'm +1'ish
> >
> > Spun up a 0.92.1 cluster wrote some data.  Then spun up a 0.92.2RC and
> > everything worked.
> > Ran LoadTestTool while killing region servers.  Everything recovered
> well.
> > Ran PerformanceEvaluation everything went well
> >
> >
> > However when trying to manually split a table while tests were running
> > I was unable to.  On investigating more I found that manual splits
> > appear to be broken in 0.92.  So I filed HBASE-6767.  I don't think
> > it's enough to sink the rc but it was something that I noticed.
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 9:47 AM, Ted Yu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> We're having more and more releases across 0.92, 0.94 and soon 0.96
> >> branches.
> >> It would be wise to revisit the historical convention.
> >>
> >> Thanks for bringing this up, J-D.
> >>
> >> On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 9:33 AM, Jean-Daniel Cryans <
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
> >>
> >>> > Usually it takes 3 +1s by committers.  Maybe hang a little while to
> >>> > get another one or so?
> >>>
> >>> Little nit, it's actually 3 PMC members. Historically committers were
> >>> also PMC members but this changed recently.
> >>>
> >>> I'm referring to http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html
> >>>
> >>> We may want to eventually do like Hadoop and have our own bylaws:
> >>> http://hadoop.apache.org/bylaws.html
> >>>
> >>> J-D
> >>>
>

I went through the following thread:
Re: ANN: The 2nd hbase 0.94.1 release candidate is available for download

I didn't see 3 binding +1's on that RC.

FYI

On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 1:27 PM, Ted Yu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> J-D:
> So far we have 2 +1 (binding) and 2 +1 (non-binding), no -1 on RC1.
>
> Do you think I can roll this RC as 0.92.2 ?
>
> Thanks
>
>
> On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 12:07 PM, Elliott Clark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
>
>> So it looks like I must have just caught a region as it was moving or
>> something.  I can't seem to re-produce that error. So I'm fully +1.
>> Sorry for the false alarm.
>>
>> On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 11:55 AM, Elliott Clark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> wrote:
>> > I'm +1'ish
>> >
>> > Spun up a 0.92.1 cluster wrote some data.  Then spun up a 0.92.2RC and
>> > everything worked.
>> > Ran LoadTestTool while killing region servers.  Everything recovered
>> well.
>> > Ran PerformanceEvaluation everything went well
>> >
>> >
>> > However when trying to manually split a table while tests were running
>> > I was unable to.  On investigating more I found that manual splits
>> > appear to be broken in 0.92.  So I filed HBASE-6767.  I don't think
>> > it's enough to sink the rc but it was something that I noticed.
>> >
>> >
>> > On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 9:47 AM, Ted Yu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >> We're having more and more releases across 0.92, 0.94 and soon 0.96
>> >> branches.
>> >> It would be wise to revisit the historical convention.
>> >>
>> >> Thanks for bringing this up, J-D.
>> >>
>> >> On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 9:33 AM, Jean-Daniel Cryans <
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> > Usually it takes 3 +1s by committers.  Maybe hang a little while to
>> >>> > get another one or so?
>> >>>
>> >>> Little nit, it's actually 3 PMC members. Historically committers were
>> >>> also PMC members but this changed recently.
>> >>>
>> >>> I'm referring to http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html
>> >>>
>> >>> We may want to eventually do like Hadoop and have our own bylaws:
>> >>> http://hadoop.apache.org/bylaws.html
>> >>>
>> >>> J-D
>> >>>
>>
>
>

On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 2:10 PM, Ted Yu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I went through the following thread:
> Re: ANN: The 2nd hbase 0.94.1 release candidate is available for download
>
> I didn't see 3 binding +1's on that RC.
>
> FYI

One: http://search-hadoop.com/m/Vqs68Jxybc2

Two: http://search-hadoop.com/m/TDCWTJxybc2

Three: http://search-hadoop.com/m/cqPzeJxybc2

Plus Lars himself.

Why do I have to do this?

J-D

Pardon my math.

On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 2:17 PM, Jean-Daniel Cryans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:

> On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 2:10 PM, Ted Yu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I went through the following thread:
> > Re: ANN: The 2nd hbase 0.94.1 release candidate is available for download
> >
> > I didn't see 3 binding +1's on that RC.
> >
> > FYI
>
> One: http://search-hadoop.com/m/Vqs68Jxybc2
>
> Two: http://search-hadoop.com/m/TDCWTJxybc2
>
> Three: http://search-hadoop.com/m/cqPzeJxybc2
>
> Plus Lars himself.
>
> Why do I have to do this?
>
> J-D
>

On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 1:27 PM, Ted Yu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> J-D:
> So far we have 2 +1 (binding) and 2 +1 (non-binding), no -1 on RC1.
>
> Do you think I can roll this RC as 0.92.2 ?

Looks like you already did yesterday?

http://apache.cs.utah.edu/hbase/stable/

J-D

I wasn't fully aware of the 3 binding vote rule.

I have restored the symlink.

Cheers

On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 3:07 PM, Jean-Daniel Cryans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:

> On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 1:27 PM, Ted Yu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > J-D:
> > So far we have 2 +1 (binding) and 2 +1 (non-binding), no -1 on RC1.
> >
> > Do you think I can roll this RC as 0.92.2 ?
>
> Looks like you already did yesterday?
>
> http://apache.cs.utah.edu/hbase/stable/
>
> J-D
>

Wait! 0.94 is the current stable release. Did you just re-point the stable pointer to 0.92?
0.92 is a maintenance release.

Are we telling new users to install 0.92.x or 0.94.x? For sure this should be 0.94.x.
-- Lars

________________________________
 From: Ted Yu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2012 3:13 PM
Subject: Re: ANN: The second hbase 0.92.2 release candidate is available for download
 
I wasn't fully aware of the 3 binding vote rule.

I have restored the symlink.

Cheers

On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 3:07 PM, Jean-Daniel Cryans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:

> On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 1:27 PM, Ted Yu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > J-D:
> > So far we have 2 +1 (binding) and 2 +1 (non-binding), no -1 on RC1.
> >
> > Do you think I can roll this RC as 0.92.2 ?
>
> Looks like you already did yesterday?
>
> http://apache.cs.utah.edu/hbase/stable/
>
> J-D
>

The symlink has been restored to hbase-0.94.1

Sorry for the confusion.

On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 3:31 PM, lars hofhansl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Wait! 0.94 is the current stable release. Did you just re-point the stable
> pointer to 0.92?
> 0.92 is a maintenance release.
>
> Are we telling new users to install 0.92.x or 0.94.x? For sure this should
> be 0.94.x.
>
>
> -- Lars
>
>
>
> ________________________________
>  From: Ted Yu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2012 3:13 PM
> Subject: Re: ANN: The second hbase 0.92.2 release candidate is available
> for download
>
> I wasn't fully aware of the 3 binding vote rule.
>
> I have restored the symlink.
>
> Cheers
>
> On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 3:07 PM, Jean-Daniel Cryans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 1:27 PM, Ted Yu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > J-D:
> > > So far we have 2 +1 (binding) and 2 +1 (non-binding), no -1 on RC1.
> > >
> > > Do you think I can roll this RC as 0.92.2 ?
> >
> > Looks like you already did yesterday?
> >
> > http://apache.cs.utah.edu/hbase/stable/
> >
> > J-D
> >
>

On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 2:10 PM, Ted Yu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I went through the following thread:
> Re: ANN: The 2nd hbase 0.94.1 release candidate is available for download
>
> I didn't see 3 binding +1's on that RC.
>

So, Ted, why would you even go back to the old releases to do the
above count up of votes?

Are you trying to find fault or holes in the guidance your fellow
committers are giving you?

FYI, that's how it comes across.

Its understood that you might mess up RMing given this the first time
you are going about it.  We're here to help you over the unknowns (You
might have done a bit of background reading and research on how
previous releases were run, but its fine if you didn't.  We'll
survive).

I'd suggest though going forward that you trust the counsel of your
fellow committers, especially when doing something you've plainly not
done before.  You can always blame them later if it turns out to be
ill-advice.  It'll also make it more likely your fellow committers
will want to help you out.

St.Ack

Stack:
I take your and J-D's advice.

Cheers

On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 9:12 PM, Stack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 2:10 PM, Ted Yu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I went through the following thread:
> > Re: ANN: The 2nd hbase 0.94.1 release candidate is available for download
> >
> > I didn't see 3 binding +1's on that RC.
> >
>
> So, Ted, why would you even go back to the old releases to do the
> above count up of votes?
>
> Are you trying to find fault or holes in the guidance your fellow
> committers are giving you?
>
> FYI, that's how it comes across.
>
> Its understood that you might mess up RMing given this the first time
> you are going about it.  We're here to help you over the unknowns (You
> might have done a bit of background reading and research on how
> previous releases were run, but its fine if you didn't.  We'll
> survive).
>
> I'd suggest though going forward that you trust the counsel of your
> fellow committers, especially when doing something you've plainly not
> done before.  You can always blame them later if it turns out to be
> ill-advice.  It'll also make it more likely your fellow committers
> will want to help you out.
>
> St.Ack
>

Tried out the 0.92.2 RC1.

Started one Master and two RS.  Inserted data, scanned the data.  Issued
split operations.  
Restarted RS, restarted Master, split logs worked fine - got back the data.
These are the steps we carried out to test the RC.  Thanks to RajeshBabu for
helping out in this test.

So +1 from my side on the RC.

Regards
Ram
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ted Yu [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Thursday, September 13, 2012 9:46 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: ANN: The second hbase 0.92.2 release candidate is
> available for download
>
> Stack:
> I take your and J-D's advice.
>
> Cheers
>
> On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 9:12 PM, Stack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 2:10 PM, Ted Yu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > I went through the following thread:
> > > Re: ANN: The 2nd hbase 0.94.1 release candidate is available for
> download
> > >
> > > I didn't see 3 binding +1's on that RC.
> > >
> >
> > So, Ted, why would you even go back to the old releases to do the
> > above count up of votes?
> >
> > Are you trying to find fault or holes in the guidance your fellow
> > committers are giving you?
> >
> > FYI, that's how it comes across.
> >
> > Its understood that you might mess up RMing given this the first time
> > you are going about it.  We're here to help you over the unknowns
> (You
> > might have done a bit of background reading and research on how
> > previous releases were run, but its fine if you didn't.  We'll
> > survive).
> >
> > I'd suggest though going forward that you trust the counsel of your
> > fellow committers, especially when doing something you've plainly not
> > done before.  You can always blame them later if it turns out to be
> > ill-advice.  It'll also make it more likely your fellow committers
> > will want to help you out.
> >
> > St.Ack
> >

Thanks Ram and Rajesh for your work.

I think we have 3 binding +1's

I will make the announcement later in the morning.

On Sep 12, 2012, at 10:58 PM, "Ramkrishna.S.Vasudevan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Tried out the 0.92.2 RC1.
>
> Started one Master and two RS.  Inserted data, scanned the data.  Issued
> split operations.  
> Restarted RS, restarted Master, split logs worked fine - got back the data.
> These are the steps we carried out to test the RC.  Thanks to RajeshBabu for
> helping out in this test.
>
> So +1 from my side on the RC.
>
> Regards
> Ram
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Ted Yu [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>> Sent: Thursday, September 13, 2012 9:46 AM
>> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> Subject: Re: ANN: The second hbase 0.92.2 release candidate is
>> available for download
>>
>> Stack:
>> I take your and J-D's advice.
>>
>> Cheers
>>
>> On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 9:12 PM, Stack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 2:10 PM, Ted Yu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>> I went through the following thread:
>>>> Re: ANN: The 2nd hbase 0.94.1 release candidate is available for
>> download
>>>>
>>>> I didn't see 3 binding +1's on that RC.
>>>>
>>>
>>> So, Ted, why would you even go back to the old releases to do the
>>> above count up of votes?
>>>
>>> Are you trying to find fault or holes in the guidance your fellow
>>> committers are giving you?
>>>
>>> FYI, that's how it comes across.
>>>
>>> Its understood that you might mess up RMing given this the first time
>>> you are going about it.  We're here to help you over the unknowns
>> (You
>>> might have done a bit of background reading and research on how
>>> previous releases were run, but its fine if you didn't.  We'll
>>> survive).
>>>
>>> I'd suggest though going forward that you trust the counsel of your
>>> fellow committers, especially when doing something you've plainly not
>>> done before.  You can always blame them later if it turns out to be
>>> ill-advice.  It'll also make it more likely your fellow committers
>>> will want to help you out.
>>>
>>> St.Ack
>>>
>