I've posted an hbase 0.20.5 release candidate 2 here:

 http://people.apache.org/~stack/hbase-0.20.5-candidate-2/

Should we release this candidate as hbase 0.20.5?

It has 18 fixes: http://su.pr/1prW9y

Please take it for a test spin if you have a chance.  Vote closes
Friday, the 11th of June.

Yours,
Your HBase Homies

Unfortunately -1: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-2670 affects
branch as well.

I'm working on a fix, will target both branch and trunk, but may be a couple
days before we can thoroughly test it (this bug is devious)

-Todd

On Mon, Jun 7, 2010 at 1:09 PM, Stack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> I've posted an hbase 0.20.5 release candidate 2 here:
>
>  http://people.apache.org/~stack/hbase-0.20.5-candidate-2/
>
> Should we release this candidate as hbase 0.20.5?
>
> It has 18 fixes: http://su.pr/1prW9y
>
> Please take it for a test spin if you have a chance.  Vote closes
> Friday, the 11th of June.
>
> Yours,
> Your HBase Homies
>

--
Todd Lipcon
Software Engineer, Cloudera

Should we ship 0.20.5 with the fixes as is?  The bug is very rare, and
while some people might come across it, it is in 0.20.4 which is known
to be bad.

We need to get a better 0.20 out there than 0.20.4.  What we have is
pretty good, and we can fix the next issue in 0.20.6.

-ryan

On Tue, Jun 8, 2010 at 5:42 PM, Todd Lipcon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Unfortunately -1: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-2670 affects
> branch as well.
>
> I'm working on a fix, will target both branch and trunk, but may be a couple
> days before we can thoroughly test it (this bug is devious)
>
> -Todd
>
> On Mon, Jun 7, 2010 at 1:09 PM, Stack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> I've posted an hbase 0.20.5 release candidate 2 here:
>>
>>  http://people.apache.org/~stack/hbase-0.20.5-candidate-2/
>>
>> Should we release this candidate as hbase 0.20.5?
>>
>> It has 18 fixes: http://su.pr/1prW9y
>>
>> Please take it for a test spin if you have a chance.  Vote closes
>> Friday, the 11th of June.
>>
>> Yours,
>> Your HBase Homies
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Todd Lipcon
> Software Engineer, Cloudera
>

On Tue, Jun 8, 2010 at 6:11 PM, Ryan Rawson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Should we ship 0.20.5 with the fixes as is?  The bug is very rare, and
> while some people might come across it, it is in 0.20.4 which is known
> to be bad.
>
> We need to get a better 0.20 out there than 0.20.4.  What we have is
> pretty good, and we can fix the next issue in 0.20.6.
>
>
Actually that sounds fair to me. Ignore my -1 conditional on us doing an
0.20.6 sometime in the next couple weeks.

I'll try to do some cluster testing this week to actually put a +1 in
instead of just retracting a -1 :)

-Todd
> -ryan
>
> On Tue, Jun 8, 2010 at 5:42 PM, Todd Lipcon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Unfortunately -1: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-2670affects
> > branch as well.
> >
> > I'm working on a fix, will target both branch and trunk, but may be a
> couple
> > days before we can thoroughly test it (this bug is devious)
> >
> > -Todd
> >
> > On Mon, Jun 7, 2010 at 1:09 PM, Stack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >> I've posted an hbase 0.20.5 release candidate 2 here:
> >>
> >>  http://people.apache.org/~stack/hbase-0.20.5-candidate-2/
> >>
> >> Should we release this candidate as hbase 0.20.5?
> >>
> >> It has 18 fixes: http://su.pr/1prW9y
> >>
> >> Please take it for a test spin if you have a chance.  Vote closes
> >> Friday, the 11th of June.
> >>
> >> Yours,
> >> Your HBase Homies
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Todd Lipcon
> > Software Engineer, Cloudera
> >
>

--
Todd Lipcon
Software Engineer, Cloudera

Yeah, HBASE-2670 is bad, but the hang that can happen in 0.20.4 is
very bad (and the failed replay of deletes on crash).  We need to get
a replacement out there.  I'm well game for 0.20.6 coming right after
a 0.20.5.

St.Ack
On Tue, Jun 8, 2010 at 6:11 PM, Ryan Rawson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Should we ship 0.20.5 with the fixes as is?  The bug is very rare, and
> while some people might come across it, it is in 0.20.4 which is known
> to be bad.
>
> We need to get a better 0.20 out there than 0.20.4.  What we have is
> pretty good, and we can fix the next issue in 0.20.6.
>
> -ryan
>
> On Tue, Jun 8, 2010 at 5:42 PM, Todd Lipcon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Unfortunately -1: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-2670 affects
>> branch as well.
>>
>> I'm working on a fix, will target both branch and trunk, but may be a couple
>> days before we can thoroughly test it (this bug is devious)
>>
>> -Todd
>>
>> On Mon, Jun 7, 2010 at 1:09 PM, Stack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>> I've posted an hbase 0.20.5 release candidate 2 here:
>>>
>>>  http://people.apache.org/~stack/hbase-0.20.5-candidate-2/
>>>
>>> Should we release this candidate as hbase 0.20.5?
>>>
>>> It has 18 fixes: http://su.pr/1prW9y
>>>
>>> Please take it for a test spin if you have a chance.  Vote closes
>>> Friday, the 11th of June.
>>>
>>> Yours,
>>> Your HBase Homies
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Todd Lipcon
>> Software Engineer, Cloudera
>>
>

This is a slippery slope.

--- On Tue, 6/8/10, Todd Lipcon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> From: Todd Lipcon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Shall we release hbase-0.20.5 Release Candidate 2 as  hbase-0.20.5?
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Date: Tuesday, June 8, 2010, 7:26 PM
> On Tue, Jun 8, 2010 at 6:11 PM, Ryan
> Rawson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> > Should we ship 0.20.5 with the fixes as is?  The
> bug is very rare, and
> > while some people might come across it, it is in
> 0.20.4 which is known
> > to be bad.
> >
> > We need to get a better 0.20 out there than
> 0.20.4.  What we have is
> > pretty good, and we can fix the next issue in 0.20.6.
> >
> >
> Actually that sounds fair to me. Ignore my -1 conditional
> on us doing an
> 0.20.6 sometime in the next couple weeks.
>
> I'll try to do some cluster testing this week to actually
> put a +1 in
> instead of just retracting a -1 :)
>
> -Todd
>
>
> > -ryan
> >
> > On Tue, Jun 8, 2010 at 5:42 PM, Todd Lipcon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> > > Unfortunately -1: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-2670affects
> > > branch as well.
> > >
> > > I'm working on a fix, will target both branch and
> trunk, but may be a
> > couple
> > > days before we can thoroughly test it (this bug
> is devious)
> > >
> > > -Todd
> > >
> > > On Mon, Jun 7, 2010 at 1:09 PM, Stack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> > >
> > >> I've posted an hbase 0.20.5 release candidate
> 2 here:
> > >>
> > >>  http://people.apache.org/~stack/hbase-0.20.5-candidate-2/
> > >>
> > >> Should we release this candidate as hbase
> 0.20.5?
> > >>
> > >> It has 18 fixes: http://su.pr/1prW9y
> > >>
> > >> Please take it for a test spin if you have a
> chance.  Vote closes
> > >> Friday, the 11th of June.
> > >>
> > >> Yours,
> > >> Your HBase Homies
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Todd Lipcon
> > > Software Engineer, Cloudera
> > >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Todd Lipcon
> Software Engineer, Cloudera
>

Every release we ship has bugs, some known, most unknown.  I have
previously argued against perfectionism in our releases (perfect is
the enemy of good), since if a bug isn't so bad and is in a previous
release, then maybe we shouldn't hold up a release which has lots of
other important fixes.  The focus is on keeping forward momentum and
preventing regressions.  I think people might generally appreciate
more but smaller releases with fewer fixes (eg: 0.20.5 has about 18
fixes which seems pretty good, not too high not too low).
On Wed, Jun 9, 2010 at 11:21 AM, Andrew Purtell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This is a slippery slope.
>
> --- On Tue, 6/8/10, Todd Lipcon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> From: Todd Lipcon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Shall we release hbase-0.20.5 Release Candidate 2 as  hbase-0.20.5?
>> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> Date: Tuesday, June 8, 2010, 7:26 PM
>> On Tue, Jun 8, 2010 at 6:11 PM, Ryan
>> Rawson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > Should we ship 0.20.5 with the fixes as is?  The
>> bug is very rare, and
>> > while some people might come across it, it is in
>> 0.20.4 which is known
>> > to be bad.
>> >
>> > We need to get a better 0.20 out there than
>> 0.20.4.  What we have is
>> > pretty good, and we can fix the next issue in 0.20.6.
>> >
>> >
>> Actually that sounds fair to me. Ignore my -1 conditional
>> on us doing an
>> 0.20.6 sometime in the next couple weeks.
>>
>> I'll try to do some cluster testing this week to actually
>> put a +1 in
>> instead of just retracting a -1 :)
>>
>> -Todd
>>
>>
>> > -ryan
>> >
>> > On Tue, Jun 8, 2010 at 5:42 PM, Todd Lipcon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> wrote:
>> > > Unfortunately -1: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-2670affects
>> > > branch as well.
>> > >
>> > > I'm working on a fix, will target both branch and
>> trunk, but may be a
>> > couple
>> > > days before we can thoroughly test it (this bug
>> is devious)
>> > >
>> > > -Todd
>> > >
>> > > On Mon, Jun 7, 2010 at 1:09 PM, Stack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> wrote:
>> > >
>> > >> I've posted an hbase 0.20.5 release candidate
>> 2 here:
>> > >>
>> > >>  http://people.apache.org/~stack/hbase-0.20.5-candidate-2/
>> > >>
>> > >> Should we release this candidate as hbase
>> 0.20.5?
>> > >>
>> > >> It has 18 fixes: http://su.pr/1prW9y
>> > >>
>> > >> Please take it for a test spin if you have a
>> chance.  Vote closes
>> > >> Friday, the 11th of June.
>> > >>
>> > >> Yours,
>> > >> Your HBase Homies
>> > >>
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > --
>> > > Todd Lipcon
>> > > Software Engineer, Cloudera
>> > >
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Todd Lipcon
>> Software Engineer, Cloudera
>>
>
>
>
>
>

I agree with Ryan, and what we actually need would be a Known Issues
document shipped with all releases. For 0.20, lack of sync should be
the top item.

J-D

On Wed, Jun 9, 2010 at 1:07 PM, Ryan Rawson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Every release we ship has bugs, some known, most unknown.  I have
> previously argued against perfectionism in our releases (perfect is
> the enemy of good), since if a bug isn't so bad and is in a previous
> release, then maybe we shouldn't hold up a release which has lots of
> other important fixes.  The focus is on keeping forward momentum and
> preventing regressions.  I think people might generally appreciate
> more but smaller releases with fewer fixes (eg: 0.20.5 has about 18
> fixes which seems pretty good, not too high not too low).
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Jun 9, 2010 at 11:21 AM, Andrew Purtell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> This is a slippery slope.
>>
>> --- On Tue, 6/8/10, Todd Lipcon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>> From: Todd Lipcon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Shall we release hbase-0.20.5 Release Candidate 2 as  hbase-0.20.5?
>>> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>> Date: Tuesday, June 8, 2010, 7:26 PM
>>> On Tue, Jun 8, 2010 at 6:11 PM, Ryan
>>> Rawson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> > Should we ship 0.20.5 with the fixes as is?  The
>>> bug is very rare, and
>>> > while some people might come across it, it is in
>>> 0.20.4 which is known
>>> > to be bad.
>>> >
>>> > We need to get a better 0.20 out there than
>>> 0.20.4.  What we have is
>>> > pretty good, and we can fix the next issue in 0.20.6.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> Actually that sounds fair to me. Ignore my -1 conditional
>>> on us doing an
>>> 0.20.6 sometime in the next couple weeks.
>>>
>>> I'll try to do some cluster testing this week to actually
>>> put a +1 in
>>> instead of just retracting a -1 :)
>>>
>>> -Todd
>>>
>>>
>>> > -ryan
>>> >
>>> > On Tue, Jun 8, 2010 at 5:42 PM, Todd Lipcon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>> wrote:
>>> > > Unfortunately -1: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-2670affects
>>> > > branch as well.
>>> > >
>>> > > I'm working on a fix, will target both branch and
>>> trunk, but may be a
>>> > couple
>>> > > days before we can thoroughly test it (this bug
>>> is devious)
>>> > >
>>> > > -Todd
>>> > >
>>> > > On Mon, Jun 7, 2010 at 1:09 PM, Stack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>> wrote:
>>> > >
>>> > >> I've posted an hbase 0.20.5 release candidate
>>> 2 here:
>>> > >>
>>> > >>  http://people.apache.org/~stack/hbase-0.20.5-candidate-2/
>>> > >>
>>> > >> Should we release this candidate as hbase
>>> 0.20.5?
>>> > >>
>>> > >> It has 18 fixes: http://su.pr/1prW9y
>>> > >>
>>> > >> Please take it for a test spin if you have a
>>> chance.  Vote closes
>>> > >> Friday, the 11th of June.
>>> > >>
>>> > >> Yours,
>>> > >> Your HBase Homies
>>> > >>
>>> > >
>>> > >
>>> > >
>>> > > --
>>> > > Todd Lipcon
>>> > > Software Engineer, Cloudera
>>> > >
>>> >
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Todd Lipcon
>>> Software Engineer, Cloudera
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>

+1 on 0.20.5RC 2

> From: Ryan Rawson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Shall we release hbase-0.20.5 Release Candidate 2 as  hbase-0.20.5?
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Date: Wednesday, June 9, 2010, 1:07 PM
> Every release we ship has bugs, some
> known, most unknown.  I have
> previously argued against perfectionism in our releases
> (perfect is
> the enemy of good), since if a bug isn't so bad and is in a
> previous
> release, then maybe we shouldn't hold up a release which
> has lots of
> other important fixes.  The focus is on keeping
> forward momentum and
> preventing regressions.  I think people might
> generally appreciate
> more but smaller releases with fewer fixes (eg: 0.20.5 has
> about 18
> fixes which seems pretty good, not too high not too low).
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Jun 9, 2010 at 11:21 AM, Andrew Purtell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> > This is a slippery slope.
> >
> > --- On Tue, 6/8/10, Todd Lipcon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> >
> >> From: Todd Lipcon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Shall we release hbase-0.20.5
> Release Candidate 2 as  hbase-0.20.5?
> >> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >> Date: Tuesday, June 8, 2010, 7:26 PM
> >> On Tue, Jun 8, 2010 at 6:11 PM, Ryan
> >> Rawson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> > Should we ship 0.20.5 with the fixes as is? 
> The
> >> bug is very rare, and
> >> > while some people might come across it, it is
> in
> >> 0.20.4 which is known
> >> > to be bad.
> >> >
> >> > We need to get a better 0.20 out there than
> >> 0.20.4.  What we have is
> >> > pretty good, and we can fix the next issue in
> 0.20.6.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> Actually that sounds fair to me. Ignore my -1
> conditional
> >> on us doing an
> >> 0.20.6 sometime in the next couple weeks.
> >>
> >> I'll try to do some cluster testing this week to
> actually
> >> put a +1 in
> >> instead of just retracting a -1 :)
> >>
> >> -Todd
> >>
> >>
> >> > -ryan
> >> >
> >> > On Tue, Jun 8, 2010 at 5:42 PM, Todd Lipcon
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >> wrote:
> >> > > Unfortunately -1: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-2670affects
> >> > > branch as well.
> >> > >
> >> > > I'm working on a fix, will target both
> branch and
> >> trunk, but may be a
> >> > couple
> >> > > days before we can thoroughly test it
> (this bug
> >> is devious)
> >> > >
> >> > > -Todd
> >> > >
> >> > > On Mon, Jun 7, 2010 at 1:09 PM, Stack
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >> wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > >> I've posted an hbase 0.20.5 release
> candidate
> >> 2 here:
> >> > >>
> >> > >>  http://people.apache.org/~stack/hbase-0.20.5-candidate-2/
> >> > >>
> >> > >> Should we release this candidate as
> hbase
> >> 0.20.5?
> >> > >>
> >> > >> It has 18 fixes: http://su.pr/1prW9y
> >> > >>
> >> > >> Please take it for a test spin if
> you have a
> >> chance.  Vote closes
> >> > >> Friday, the 11th of June.
> >> > >>
> >> > >> Yours,
> >> > >> Your HBase Homies
> >> > >>
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > --
> >> > > Todd Lipcon
> >> > > Software Engineer, Cloudera
> >> > >
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Todd Lipcon
> >> Software Engineer, Cloudera
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

I'm currently testing the release on a cluster, but right off the bat
I see that the tar contains unwanted files. See the first two ones
here http://people.apache.org/~stack/hbase-0.20.5-candidate-2/hbase-0.20.5/

J-D

On Mon, Jun 7, 2010 at 1:09 PM, Stack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I've posted an hbase 0.20.5 release candidate 2 here:
>
>  http://people.apache.org/~stack/hbase-0.20.5-candidate-2/
>
> Should we release this candidate as hbase 0.20.5?
>
> It has 18 fixes: http://su.pr/1prW9y
>
> Please take it for a test spin if you have a chance.  Vote closes
> Friday, the 11th of June.
>
> Yours,
> Your HBase Homies
>

On Wed, Jun 9, 2010 at 2:15 PM, Jean-Daniel Cryans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm currently testing the release on a cluster, but right off the bat
> I see that the tar contains unwanted files. See the first two ones
> here http://people.apache.org/~stack/hbase-0.20.5-candidate-2/hbase-0.20.5/
>

Thats bad on my part.

I'd say keep on testing this candidate and if passes muster, when I
role the release, I'll excise the two patch files.

St.Ack

> J-D
>
> On Mon, Jun 7, 2010 at 1:09 PM, Stack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I've posted an hbase 0.20.5 release candidate 2 here:
>>
>>  http://people.apache.org/~stack/hbase-0.20.5-candidate-2/
>>
>> Should we release this candidate as hbase 0.20.5?
>>
>> It has 18 fixes: http://su.pr/1prW9y
>>
>> Please take it for a test spin if you have a chance.  Vote closes
>> Friday, the 11th of June.
>>
>> Yours,
>> Your HBase Homies
>>
>

I'm -1, we need HBASE-2712. The fix is super easy, I will do that today.

J-D

On Mon, Jun 7, 2010 at 1:09 PM, Stack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I've posted an hbase 0.20.5 release candidate 2 here:
>
>  http://people.apache.org/~stack/hbase-0.20.5-candidate-2/
>
> Should we release this candidate as hbase 0.20.5?
>
> It has 18 fixes: http://su.pr/1prW9y
>
> Please take it for a test spin if you have a chance.  Vote closes
> Friday, the 11th of June.
>
> Yours,
> Your HBase Homies
>

I've posted an hbase 0.20.5 release candidate 3 here:

 http://people.apache.org/~jdcryans/hbase-0.20.5-candidate-3/

Should we release this candidate as hbase 0.20.5?

It has 20 fixes: http://su.pr/1prW9y

Please take it for a test spin if you have a chance.  Vote closes
Wednesday, the 15th of June.

Yours,
Your HBase Homies

HBase-2740 sinks this release.  This release candidate was also
missing generated documentation.  Should be an RC4 up soon.
Thanks,
St.Ack

On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 6:14 PM, Jean-Daniel Cryans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I've posted an hbase 0.20.5 release candidate 3 here:
>
>  http://people.apache.org/~jdcryans/hbase-0.20.5-candidate-3/
>
> Should we release this candidate as hbase 0.20.5?
>
> It has 20 fixes: http://su.pr/1prW9y
>
> Please take it for a test spin if you have a chance.  Vote closes
> Wednesday, the 15th of June.
>
> Yours,
> Your HBase Homies
>

I've posted an hbase 0.20.5 release candidate 4 here:

 http://people.apache.org/~stack/hbase-0.20.5-candidate-4/

There have been 24 issues addressed since the release of hbase-0.20.4 [1].

Should we release this candidate as hbase 0.20.5?

Please take it for a test spin if you have a chance.  Vote closes
Wednesday, June 23rd.

Thanks,
Your HBase Team

1. http://su.pr/1prW9y

The inclusion of HBASE-1537 changes the Scan serialization format, making
clients incompatible with previous 0.20.x releases.  Is that ok?

Dave

On Sat, Jun 19, 2010 at 12:33 AM, Stack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> I've posted an hbase 0.20.5 release candidate 4 here:
>
>  http://people.apache.org/~stack/hbase-0.20.5-candidate-4/<http://people.apache.org/%7Estack/hbase-0.20.5-candidate-4/>
>
> There have been 24 issues addressed since the release of hbase-0.20.4 [1].
>
> Should we release this candidate as hbase 0.20.5?
>
> Please take it for a test spin if you have a chance.  Vote closes
> Wednesday, June 23rd.
>
> Thanks,
> Your HBase Team
>
> 1. http://su.pr/1prW9y
>

When this first went in we were making an incompatible branch release already. I think the current situation is pretty close.

However, IMO let's just do this on trunk.

The current very simple approach works for some straightforward cases but I have a dev group reporting some odd behavior that I need to dig into next week. Doing this right may be more complicated.

   - Andy

--- On Sat, 6/19/10, Dave Latham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> From: Dave Latham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Shall we release hbase-0.20.5 Release Candidate 4 as  hbase-0.20.5?
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Date: Saturday, June 19, 2010, 8:59 AM
> The inclusion of HBASE-1537 changes
> the Scan serialization format, making
> clients incompatible with previous 0.20.x releases. 
> Is that ok?
>
> Dave
>
> On Sat, Jun 19, 2010 at 12:33 AM, Stack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> > I've posted an hbase 0.20.5 release candidate 4 here:
> >
> >  http://people.apache.org/~stack/hbase-0.20.5-candidate-4/<http://people.apache.org/%7Estack/hbase-0.20.5-candidate-4/>
> >
> > There have been 24 issues addressed since the release
> of hbase-0.20.4 [1].
> >
> > Should we release this candidate as hbase 0.20.5?
> >
> > Please take it for a test spin if you have a
> chance.  Vote closes
> > Wednesday, June 23rd.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Your HBase Team
> >
> > 1. http://su.pr/1prW9y
> >
>

I've posted an hbase 0.20.5 release candidate 5 here:

 http://people.apache.org/~stack/hbase-0.20.5-candidate-5/

There have been 24 issues addressed since the release of hbase-0.20.4 [1].

Should we release this candidate as hbase 0.20.5?

Please take it for a test spin if you have a chance.  Vote closes
Wednesday, June 23rd.

Thanks,
Your HBase Team

1. http://su.pr/1prW9y

-1

Mail to follow.

   - Andy

See my other mail today.

If I have it wrong, please feel free to change my vote to 0.

I will be out of touch for 24 hours+.

   - Andy

The issue has something to do with having -ROOT- and .META. on the
same server which is a rare event given that the assignment function
will only do this if if finds the cluster is made of one server only
(On ec2, where the issue was found, using our ec2 scripts, this is a
more likely given how there can be a lag as servers come in after
master startup).

I have been trying to reproduce and have not been having much luck.
I'm sure there is something in here and with more time, we'll narrow
in on the trigger but my thought, after talking with Andrew offline,
is to change his -1 to a +0, that this should not sink the current
release candidate, and that he we'll get it next time around in
0.20.6.

St.Ack
On Sat, Jun 19, 2010 at 1:48 PM, Andrew Purtell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> See my other mail today.
>
> If I have it wrong, please feel free to change my vote to 0.
>
> I will be out of touch for 24 hours+.
>
>   - Andy
>
>
>
>
>
>

+1

I ran YCSB 50/50 against a small cluster hosting the candidate
overnight w/ 100 threads.  This morning I added mini scans on top of
YCSB and then added concurrent sequential writing.

The doc. looks fine.

St.Ack
On Mon, Jun 21, 2010 at 9:24 PM, Stack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The issue has something to do with having -ROOT- and .META. on the
> same server which is a rare event given that the assignment function
> will only do this if if finds the cluster is made of one server only
> (On ec2, where the issue was found, using our ec2 scripts, this is a
> more likely given how there can be a lag as servers come in after
> master startup).
>
> I have been trying to reproduce and have not been having much luck.
> I'm sure there is something in here and with more time, we'll narrow
> in on the trigger but my thought, after talking with Andrew offline,
> is to change his -1 to a +0, that this should not sink the current
> release candidate, and that he we'll get it next time around in
> 0.20.6.
>
> St.Ack
>
>
> On Sat, Jun 19, 2010 at 1:48 PM, Andrew Purtell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> See my other mail today.
>>
>> If I have it wrong, please feel free to change my vote to 0.
>>
>> I will be out of touch for 24 hours+.
>>
>>   - Andy
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>

+1

Ran it through a set of representative MR jobs that read/write to different
tables in a cluster we are preparing to migrate to.  Didn't hit any problems
or any of the issues we've had with earlier release candidates.

Dave

On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 9:34 AM, Stack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> +1
>
> I ran YCSB 50/50 against a small cluster hosting the candidate
> overnight w/ 100 threads.  This morning I added mini scans on top of
> YCSB and then added concurrent sequential writing.
>
> The doc. looks fine.
>
> St.Ack
>
>
> On Mon, Jun 21, 2010 at 9:24 PM, Stack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > The issue has something to do with having -ROOT- and .META. on the
> > same server which is a rare event given that the assignment function
> > will only do this if if finds the cluster is made of one server only
> > (On ec2, where the issue was found, using our ec2 scripts, this is a
> > more likely given how there can be a lag as servers come in after
> > master startup).
> >
> > I have been trying to reproduce and have not been having much luck.
> > I'm sure there is something in here and with more time, we'll narrow
> > in on the trigger but my thought, after talking with Andrew offline,
> > is to change his -1 to a +0, that this should not sink the current
> > release candidate, and that he we'll get it next time around in
> > 0.20.6.
> >
> > St.Ack
> >
> >
> > On Sat, Jun 19, 2010 at 1:48 PM, Andrew Purtell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> >> See my other mail today.
> >>
> >> If I have it wrong, please feel free to change my vote to 0.
> >>
> >> I will be out of touch for 24 hours+.
> >>
> >>   - Andy
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
>

+1

Ran unit tests, spun up cluster and ran some read/write tests, all looks good.

JG

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of
> Stack
> Sent: Saturday, June 19, 2010 12:42 PM
> To: HBase Dev List
> Subject: [VOTE] Shall we release hbase-0.20.5 Release Candidate 5 as
> hbase-0.20.5?
>
> I've posted an hbase 0.20.5 release candidate 5 here:
>
>  http://people.apache.org/~stack/hbase-0.20.5-candidate-5/
>
> There have been 24 issues addressed since the release of hbase-0.20.4
> [1].
>
> Should we release this candidate as hbase 0.20.5?
>
> Please take it for a test spin if you have a chance.  Vote closes
> Wednesday, June 23rd.
>
> Thanks,
> Your HBase Team
>
> 1. http://su.pr/1prW9y

Ran some imports and all unit tests, +1

J-D

On Sat, Jun 19, 2010 at 12:41 PM, Stack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I've posted an hbase 0.20.5 release candidate 5 here:
>
>  http://people.apache.org/~stack/hbase-0.20.5-candidate-5/
>
> There have been 24 issues addressed since the release of hbase-0.20.4 [1].
>
> Should we release this candidate as hbase 0.20.5?
>
> Please take it for a test spin if you have a chance.  Vote closes
> Wednesday, June 23rd.
>
> Thanks,
> Your HBase Team
>
> 1. http://su.pr/1prW9y
>

Vote passes (4 X +1, a +/- 0 and no -1s).  Will roll the release later today.
St.Ack

On Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 12:15 PM, Jean-Daniel Cryans
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ran some imports and all unit tests, +1
>
> J-D
>
> On Sat, Jun 19, 2010 at 12:41 PM, Stack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I've posted an hbase 0.20.5 release candidate 5 here:
>>
>>  http://people.apache.org/~stack/hbase-0.20.5-candidate-5/
>>
>> There have been 24 issues addressed since the release of hbase-0.20.4 [1].
>>
>> Should we release this candidate as hbase 0.20.5?
>>
>> Please take it for a test spin if you have a chance.  Vote closes
>> Wednesday, June 23rd.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Your HBase Team
>>
>> 1. http://su.pr/1prW9y
>>
>

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