Home | About | Sematext search-lucene.com search-hadoop.com
 Search Hadoop and all its subprojects:

Switch to Plain View
HBase >> mail # dev >> [VOTE] The 1st hbase-0.96.0 release candidate is available for download


+
Stack 2013-08-31, 03:35
+
Jean-Marc Spaggiari 2013-08-31, 11:15
+
Devaraj Das 2013-08-31, 18:23
+
Stack 2013-08-31, 22:17
Copy link to this message
-
Re: [VOTE] The 1st hbase-0.96.0 release candidate is available for download
I have run into a similar case where we were encoding a negative integer as
a uint64. It turns out that it just works, since PB encoding and decoding
back will still cast to java longs, since java does not have unsigned's, it
will turn to -1 again. However, it anybody reads that value from c++ PB
library for example, they will read the equivalent of (unsigned long) -1.
On Sat, Aug 31, 2013 at 11:23 AM, Devaraj Das <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Thanks for making the RC, Stack. I bumped into one thing which I thought I
> should bring up in the context of singularity - the ServerName message in
> hbase.proto should have the start_code as a signed int. We allow for -1 (
> ServerName.NON_STARTCODE) as a start_code. Hence.. Yes it can be worked
> around, and, maybe there won't any wire-compat issues if we make the change
> later (not sure about it) but I think we should fix it now. What do you
> think?
>
> For illustration, here is the proposed fix.
>
> diff --git a/hbase-protocol/src/main/protobuf/hbase.proto
> b/hbase-protocol/src/main/protobuf/hbase.proto
> index 08061e5..2f9a8d1 100644
> --- a/hbase-protocol/src/main/protobuf/hbase.proto
> +++ b/hbase-protocol/src/main/protobuf/hbase.proto
> @@ -120,7 +120,7 @@ enum CompareType {
>  message ServerName {
>    required string host_name = 1;
>    optional uint32 port = 2;
> -  optional uint64 start_code = 3;
> +  optional int64 start_code = 3;
>  }
>
>
>
>
> On Sat, Aug 31, 2013 at 4:15 AM, Jean-Marc Spaggiari <
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Hi St.Ack,
> >
> > Thanks for this release!
> >
> > Is there a way to run the test suite on the binary packages? Or we can
> only
> > run the tests on the source distribution?
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > JM
> >
> >
> > 2013/8/30 Stack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >
> > > hbase-0.96.0  will be our next major release.  It is intended to
> supplant
> > > the 0.94.x series.
> > >
> > > hbase-0.96.0RC0 is our first candidate for release hbase-0.96.0.
> > >
> > > The signed tarballs are available here:
> > >
> > >  http://people.apache.org/~stack/0.96.0RC0/
> > >
> > > The hbase built against hadoop1 artifacts are here:
> > >
> > >
> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachehbase-126/
> > >
> > > The hbase built against hadoop2 artifacts are here:
> > >
> > >
> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachehbase-127/
> > >
> > > Note that hbase-0.96.0 comes in two flavors; a build that includes and
> > runs
> > > on hadoop-1.x and another for hadoop-2.x.  You must chose the hbase
> that
> > > suits your hadoop context.
> > >
> > > Almost 2k issues [1] are attributed to this version (counting fixes
> done
> > > against this and the 0.95.x developer series of releases).  Almost 100
> > > fixes have been committed since 0.95.2.  I will follow up w/ a synopsis
> > of
> > > the major changes.
> > >
> > > Please take it for a spin.  We are interested in any issues found but
> in
> > > particular, we would appreciate feedback on how well the migration of a
> > > 0.94.x dataset to run under 0.96.0 works [2].
> > >
> > > Should this candidate become hbase-0.96.0?  Please vote +/-1 by
> September
> > > 9th.
> > >
> > >
> > > St.Ack
> > >
> > > 1.
> > >
> > >
> >
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=project%20%3D%20HBASE%20AND%20(%20fixVersion%20%3D%20%220.96.0%22%20or%20fixVersion%20%3D%20%220.95.0%22%20%20or%20fixVersion%20%3D%20%220.95.1%22%20or%20fixVersion%20%3D%20%220.95.2%22%20)%20AND%20(status%20%3D%20Resolved%20OR%20status%20%3D%20Closed)%20ORDER%20BY%20issuetype%20DESC%2C%20priority%20DESC
> > > 2. http://hbase.apache.org/book.html#upgrade0.96
> > >
> >
>
> --
> CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE
> NOTICE: This message is intended for the use of the individual or entity to
> which it is addressed and may contain information that is confidential,
> privileged and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader
> of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that
> any printing, copying, dissemination, distribution, disclosure or
+
Stack 2013-08-31, 22:13
+
Jean-Marc Spaggiari 2013-09-02, 16:41
+
Stack 2013-09-02, 17:00
+
Jean-Marc Spaggiari 2013-09-02, 17:20
+
Jean-Marc Spaggiari 2013-09-02, 17:51
+
Stack 2013-09-03, 13:06
+
Jean-Marc Spaggiari 2013-09-03, 13:57
+
Elliott Clark 2013-09-03, 19:56
+
Devaraj Das 2013-09-03, 20:19
+
Devaraj Das 2013-09-04, 01:17
+
Devaraj Das 2013-09-04, 01:30
+
Elliott Clark 2013-09-04, 03:31
+
Stack 2013-09-04, 00:09
+
Jean-Marc Spaggiari 2013-09-04, 02:35
+
Stack 2013-09-05, 00:34
+
Elliott Clark 2013-09-06, 20:42
+
Stack 2013-09-07, 08:19
+
Nicolas Liochon 2013-09-09, 17:34
+
Jonathan Hsieh 2013-09-09, 20:45
+
Stack 2013-09-09, 21:24
+
Enis Söztutar 2013-09-09, 21:11
+
Nick Dimiduk 2013-09-09, 17:33
+
Stack 2013-09-11, 17:19
+
Devaraj Das 2013-09-11, 17:51
+
Sergey Shelukhin 2013-09-11, 18:11
+
Enis Söztutar 2013-09-11, 18:18
+
Nick Dimiduk 2013-09-11, 18:22
+
Stack 2013-09-11, 20:26
+
Stack 2013-09-16, 15:38
+
Nicolas Liochon 2013-09-16, 16:26
+
Stack 2013-09-16, 19:00
+
Enis Söztutar 2013-09-16, 18:40
+
Devaraj Das 2013-09-16, 20:34
+
Stack 2013-09-17, 00:10
+
Devaraj Das 2013-09-17, 00:13
+
Stack 2013-09-17, 00:22
+
Stack 2013-09-17, 06:17
+
Nick Dimiduk 2013-09-17, 18:08
+
Stack 2013-09-17, 18:10
+
Nick Dimiduk 2013-09-17, 20:28