Hi All,

I did a pass through all issues against 0.94.1, retargeted some, fixed some others.
There're still 13 Major and 1 Minor issue left. Please look through the issue that you have filed (or are working on),
and make a call whether you want this should hold up the next 0.94 release. If not, please retarget to 0.94.2
(Or mail me offline if you have questions).

Obviously we'll fix the Blocker/Critical issues before the next release.

Thanks.

-- Lars

On Thu, Jul 5, 2012 at 5:36 PM, lars hofhansl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> I did a pass through all issues against 0.94.1, retargeted some, fixed some others.
> There're still 13 Major and 1 Minor issue left. Please look through the issue that you have filed (or are working on),
> and make a call whether you want this should hold up the next 0.94 release. If not, please retarget to 0.94.2
> (Or mail me offline if you have questions).

Question: what's the likelihood of 0.94.1 release within next couple
of weeks? We hooked it up to the trunk of Bigtop and will be validating
RCs.

Thanks,
Roman.

That's great, thanks for setting this up Roman!
There're only three issues left against 0.94.1.
I want to push it out quickly because of HBASE-6311.

I am 90% sure there'll be a first RC this week.

-- Lars

----- Original Message -----
From: Roman Shaposhnik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; lars hofhansl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc:
Sent: Monday, July 9, 2012 8:35 AM
Subject: Re: HBase 0.94.1

On Thu, Jul 5, 2012 at 5:36 PM, lars hofhansl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> I did a pass through all issues against 0.94.1, retargeted some, fixed some others.
> There're still 13 Major and 1 Minor issue left. Please look through the issue that you have filed (or are working on),
> and make a call whether you want this should hold up the next 0.94 release. If not, please retarget to 0.94.2
> (Or mail me offline if you have questions).

Question: what's the likelihood of 0.94.1 release within next couple
of weeks? We hooked it up to the trunk of Bigtop and will be validating
RCs.

Thanks,
Roman.

If possible, can you wait for the poll on metrics2 framework to close ?
If the poll passes, 0.94.1 RC would carry deprecation for (old) metric
classes.

Thanks

On Mon, Jul 9, 2012 at 4:07 PM, lars hofhansl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> That's great, thanks for setting this up Roman!
>
>
> There're only three issues left against 0.94.1.
> I want to push it out quickly because of HBASE-6311.
>
> I am 90% sure there'll be a first RC this week.
>
> -- Lars
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Roman Shaposhnik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; lars hofhansl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Cc:
> Sent: Monday, July 9, 2012 8:35 AM
> Subject: Re: HBase 0.94.1
>
> On Thu, Jul 5, 2012 at 5:36 PM, lars hofhansl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Hi All,
> >
> > I did a pass through all issues against 0.94.1, retargeted some, fixed
> some others.
> > There're still 13 Major and 1 Minor issue left. Please look through the
> issue that you have filed (or are working on),
> > and make a call whether you want this should hold up the next 0.94
> release. If not, please retarget to 0.94.2
> > (Or mail me offline if you have questions).
>
> Question: what's the likelihood of 0.94.1 release within next couple
> of weeks? We hooked it up to the trunk of Bigtop and will be validating
> RCs.
>
> Thanks,
> Roman.
>
>

0.94 is already out and did not have these deprecated. So deprecating them now in a point release is a bit strange.
Not -1'ing it, just raising that thought here.

As said below because of HBASE-6311 0.94.1 should get out soon. If push comes to shuff are folks ok with:
1. deprecating in a point release
2. maybe doing that in 0.94.2
?

Lastly, I don't think we need to deprecate now in order in remove in 0.96.
Thanks.

-- Lars

----- Original Message -----
From: Ted Yu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; lars hofhansl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc:
Sent: Monday, July 9, 2012 4:38 PM
Subject: Re: HBase 0.94.1

If possible, can you wait for the poll on metrics2 framework to close ?
If the poll passes, 0.94.1 RC would carry deprecation for (old) metric
classes.

Thanks

On Mon, Jul 9, 2012 at 4:07 PM, lars hofhansl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> That's great, thanks for setting this up Roman!
>
>
> There're only three issues left against 0.94.1.
> I want to push it out quickly because of HBASE-6311.
>
> I am 90% sure there'll be a first RC this week.
>
> -- Lars
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Roman Shaposhnik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; lars hofhansl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Cc:
> Sent: Monday, July 9, 2012 8:35 AM
> Subject: Re: HBase 0.94.1
>
> On Thu, Jul 5, 2012 at 5:36 PM, lars hofhansl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Hi All,
> >
> > I did a pass through all issues against 0.94.1, retargeted some, fixed
> some others.
> > There're still 13 Major and 1 Minor issue left. Please look through the
> issue that you have filed (or are working on),
> > and make a call whether you want this should hold up the next 0.94
> release. If not, please retarget to 0.94.2
> > (Or mail me offline if you have questions).
>
> Question: what's the likelihood of 0.94.1 release within next couple
> of weeks? We hooked it up to the trunk of Bigtop and will be validating
> RCs.
>
> Thanks,
> Roman.
>
>

0.94.0 was not a stable release.
I hope 0.94.1 would be stable. My rationale was that deprecating current
metric classes in the first stable release of 0.94 should be acceptable.

I would humbly listen to other people's opinions, of course.

Cheers

On Mon, Jul 9, 2012 at 4:46 PM, lars hofhansl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> 0.94 is already out and did not have these deprecated. So deprecating them
> now in a point release is a bit strange.
> Not -1'ing it, just raising that thought here.
>
> As said below because of HBASE-6311 0.94.1 should get out soon. If push
> comes to shuff are folks ok with:
> 1. deprecating in a point release
> 2. maybe doing that in 0.94.2
> ?
>
> Lastly, I don't think we need to deprecate now in order in remove in 0.96.
>
>
> Thanks.
>
> -- Lars
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Ted Yu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; lars hofhansl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Cc:
> Sent: Monday, July 9, 2012 4:38 PM
> Subject: Re: HBase 0.94.1
>
> If possible, can you wait for the poll on metrics2 framework to close ?
> If the poll passes, 0.94.1 RC would carry deprecation for (old) metric
> classes.
>
> Thanks
>
> On Mon, Jul 9, 2012 at 4:07 PM, lars hofhansl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > That's great, thanks for setting this up Roman!
> >
> >
> > There're only three issues left against 0.94.1.
> > I want to push it out quickly because of HBASE-6311.
> >
> > I am 90% sure there'll be a first RC this week.
> >
> > -- Lars
> >
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Roman Shaposhnik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; lars hofhansl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Cc:
> > Sent: Monday, July 9, 2012 8:35 AM
> > Subject: Re: HBase 0.94.1
> >
> > On Thu, Jul 5, 2012 at 5:36 PM, lars hofhansl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> > > Hi All,
> > >
> > > I did a pass through all issues against 0.94.1, retargeted some, fixed
> > some others.
> > > There're still 13 Major and 1 Minor issue left. Please look through the
> > issue that you have filed (or are working on),
> > > and make a call whether you want this should hold up the next 0.94
> > release. If not, please retarget to 0.94.2
> > > (Or mail me offline if you have questions).
> >
> > Question: what's the likelihood of 0.94.1 release within next couple
> > of weeks? We hooked it up to the trunk of Bigtop and will be validating
> > RCs.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Roman.
> >
> >
>
>

Its a little funky to deprecate at this point, but the stable release
argument is completely valid, especially to get the metrics into the
singularity.

+1
-------------------
Jesse Yates
@jesse_yates
jyates.github.com
On Mon, Jul 9, 2012 at 5:04 PM, Ted Yu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> 0.94.0 was not a stable release.
> I hope 0.94.1 would be stable. My rationale was that deprecating current
> metric classes in the first stable release of 0.94 should be acceptable.
>
> I would humbly listen to other people's opinions, of course.
>
> Cheers
>
> On Mon, Jul 9, 2012 at 4:46 PM, lars hofhansl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > 0.94 is already out and did not have these deprecated. So deprecating
> them
> > now in a point release is a bit strange.
> > Not -1'ing it, just raising that thought here.
> >
> > As said below because of HBASE-6311 0.94.1 should get out soon. If push
> > comes to shuff are folks ok with:
> > 1. deprecating in a point release
> > 2. maybe doing that in 0.94.2
> > ?
> >
> > Lastly, I don't think we need to deprecate now in order in remove in
> 0.96.
> >
> >
> > Thanks.
> >
> > -- Lars
> >
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Ted Yu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; lars hofhansl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Cc:
> > Sent: Monday, July 9, 2012 4:38 PM
> > Subject: Re: HBase 0.94.1
> >
> > If possible, can you wait for the poll on metrics2 framework to close ?
> > If the poll passes, 0.94.1 RC would carry deprecation for (old) metric
> > classes.
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> > On Mon, Jul 9, 2012 at 4:07 PM, lars hofhansl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> >
> > > That's great, thanks for setting this up Roman!
> > >
> > >
> > > There're only three issues left against 0.94.1.
> > > I want to push it out quickly because of HBASE-6311.
> > >
> > > I am 90% sure there'll be a first RC this week.
> > >
> > > -- Lars
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: Roman Shaposhnik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; lars hofhansl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > Cc:
> > > Sent: Monday, July 9, 2012 8:35 AM
> > > Subject: Re: HBase 0.94.1
> > >
> > > On Thu, Jul 5, 2012 at 5:36 PM, lars hofhansl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > wrote:
> > > > Hi All,
> > > >
> > > > I did a pass through all issues against 0.94.1, retargeted some,
> fixed
> > > some others.
> > > > There're still 13 Major and 1 Minor issue left. Please look through
> the
> > > issue that you have filed (or are working on),
> > > > and make a call whether you want this should hold up the next 0.94
> > > release. If not, please retarget to 0.94.2
> > > > (Or mail me offline if you have questions).
> > >
> > > Question: what's the likelihood of 0.94.1 release within next couple
> > > of weeks? We hooked it up to the trunk of Bigtop and will be validating
> > > RCs.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Roman.
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>

Ted,

Please explain in more detail why 0.94.0 was not a stable release. And what about 0.94.1 is different that it should be considered stable now? And since 0.94.0 was, as you contend, an unstable release, how did it get by the RC process and what can we do to improve the RC process so that does not happen again? Thanks.

    - Andy

On Jul 9, 2012, at 5:04 PM, Ted Yu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> 0.94.0 was not a stable release.
> I hope 0.94.1 would be stable. My rationale was that deprecating current
> metric classes in the first stable release of 0.94 should be acceptable.
>
> I would humbly listen to other people's opinions, of course.
>
> Cheers
>
> On Mon, Jul 9, 2012 at 4:46 PM, lars hofhansl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> 0.94 is already out and did not have these deprecated. So deprecating them
>> now in a point release is a bit strange.
>> Not -1'ing it, just raising that thought here.
>>
>> As said below because of HBASE-6311 0.94.1 should get out soon. If push
>> comes to shuff are folks ok with:
>> 1. deprecating in a point release
>> 2. maybe doing that in 0.94.2
>> ?
>>
>> Lastly, I don't think we need to deprecate now in order in remove in 0.96.
>>
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>> -- Lars
>>
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: Ted Yu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; lars hofhansl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> Cc:
>> Sent: Monday, July 9, 2012 4:38 PM
>> Subject: Re: HBase 0.94.1
>>
>> If possible, can you wait for the poll on metrics2 framework to close ?
>> If the poll passes, 0.94.1 RC would carry deprecation for (old) metric
>> classes.
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>> On Mon, Jul 9, 2012 at 4:07 PM, lars hofhansl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>> That's great, thanks for setting this up Roman!
>>>
>>>
>>> There're only three issues left against 0.94.1.
>>> I want to push it out quickly because of HBASE-6311.
>>>
>>> I am 90% sure there'll be a first RC this week.
>>>
>>> -- Lars
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: Roman Shaposhnik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; lars hofhansl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>> Cc:
>>> Sent: Monday, July 9, 2012 8:35 AM
>>> Subject: Re: HBase 0.94.1
>>>
>>> On Thu, Jul 5, 2012 at 5:36 PM, lars hofhansl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> wrote:
>>>> Hi All,
>>>>
>>>> I did a pass through all issues against 0.94.1, retargeted some, fixed
>>> some others.
>>>> There're still 13 Major and 1 Minor issue left. Please look through the
>>> issue that you have filed (or are working on),
>>>> and make a call whether you want this should hold up the next 0.94
>>> release. If not, please retarget to 0.94.2
>>>> (Or mail me offline if you have questions).
>>>
>>> Question: what's the likelihood of 0.94.1 release within next couple
>>> of weeks? We hooked it up to the trunk of Bigtop and will be validating
>>> RCs.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Roman.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>

+1 on deprecating metrics1 in the point release. If we are yanking it in 0.96 then fair warning seems fair. However I also concur with Elliott's comment in a recent JIRA that we should still accept small fixes to our use of metrics1 by contributors rather than suggest they do our migration from metrics1 to metrics2 for us.

    - Andy

On Jul 9, 2012, at 5:27 PM, Jesse Yates <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Its a little funky to deprecate at this point, but the stable release
> argument is completely valid, especially to get the metrics into the
> singularity.
>
> +1
> -------------------
> Jesse Yates
> @jesse_yates
> jyates.github.com
>
>
> On Mon, Jul 9, 2012 at 5:04 PM, Ted Yu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> 0.94.0 was not a stable release.
>> I hope 0.94.1 would be stable. My rationale was that deprecating current
>> metric classes in the first stable release of 0.94 should be acceptable.
>>
>> I would humbly listen to other people's opinions, of course.
>>
>> Cheers
>>
>> On Mon, Jul 9, 2012 at 4:46 PM, lars hofhansl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>> 0.94 is already out and did not have these deprecated. So deprecating
>> them
>>> now in a point release is a bit strange.
>>> Not -1'ing it, just raising that thought here.
>>>
>>> As said below because of HBASE-6311 0.94.1 should get out soon. If push
>>> comes to shuff are folks ok with:
>>> 1. deprecating in a point release
>>> 2. maybe doing that in 0.94.2
>>> ?
>>>
>>> Lastly, I don't think we need to deprecate now in order in remove in
>> 0.96.
>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks.
>>>
>>> -- Lars
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: Ted Yu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; lars hofhansl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>> Cc:
>>> Sent: Monday, July 9, 2012 4:38 PM
>>> Subject: Re: HBase 0.94.1
>>>
>>> If possible, can you wait for the poll on metrics2 framework to close ?
>>> If the poll passes, 0.94.1 RC would carry deprecation for (old) metric
>>> classes.
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>>
>>> On Mon, Jul 9, 2012 at 4:07 PM, lars hofhansl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> That's great, thanks for setting this up Roman!
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> There're only three issues left against 0.94.1.
>>>> I want to push it out quickly because of HBASE-6311.
>>>>
>>>> I am 90% sure there'll be a first RC this week.
>>>>
>>>> -- Lars
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>> From: Roman Shaposhnik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>>> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; lars hofhansl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>>> Cc:
>>>> Sent: Monday, July 9, 2012 8:35 AM
>>>> Subject: Re: HBase 0.94.1
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, Jul 5, 2012 at 5:36 PM, lars hofhansl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>> wrote:
>>>>> Hi All,
>>>>>
>>>>> I did a pass through all issues against 0.94.1, retargeted some,
>> fixed
>>>> some others.
>>>>> There're still 13 Major and 1 Minor issue left. Please look through
>> the
>>>> issue that you have filed (or are working on),
>>>>> and make a call whether you want this should hold up the next 0.94
>>>> release. If not, please retarget to 0.94.2
>>>>> (Or mail me offline if you have questions).
>>>>
>>>> Question: what's the likelihood of 0.94.1 release within next couple
>>>> of weeks? We hooked it up to the trunk of Bigtop and will be validating
>>>> RCs.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Roman.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>

Andy:
Good questions.

The fact that HBASE-6311 is deemed by Lars to be an important fix adds
support for my reasoning.

I read the posts under 'ANN: The third hbase 0.94.0 release candidate is
available for download' again.

There was discussion on 'Dictionary WAL compression making replication not
functional' which later was marked as experimental.
This message from LarsH on May 13th is notable:

'If there are no -1's by Wed, May 16th, I'll release RC4 as 0.94.0.'

To answer the last question below, I think we should allow ample time for
HBase users to try out the RC before declaration of the release.
We're building something that one day would take away significant chunk of
market share from traditional RDBMS vendors. Quality should always be our
top priority.

I would anticipate wider participation in validating 0.94.1 this time.
To my knowledge, Cloudera, Huawei and Taobao have all been actively testing
0.94 builds for some time. That was why critical issues were raised.
This should have laid better foundation for the release of 0.94.1

Cheers

On Mon, Jul 9, 2012 at 5:43 PM, Andrew Purtell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:

> Ted,
>
> Please explain in more detail why 0.94.0 was not a stable release. And
> what about 0.94.1 is different that it should be considered stable now? And
> since 0.94.0 was, as you contend, an unstable release, how did it get by
> the RC process and what can we do to improve the RC process so that does
> not happen again? Thanks.
>
>     - Andy
>
> On Jul 9, 2012, at 5:04 PM, Ted Yu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > 0.94.0 was not a stable release.
> > I hope 0.94.1 would be stable. My rationale was that deprecating current
> > metric classes in the first stable release of 0.94 should be acceptable.
> >
> > I would humbly listen to other people's opinions, of course.
> >
> > Cheers
> >
> > On Mon, Jul 9, 2012 at 4:46 PM, lars hofhansl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> >
> >> 0.94 is already out and did not have these deprecated. So deprecating
> them
> >> now in a point release is a bit strange.
> >> Not -1'ing it, just raising that thought here.
> >>
> >> As said below because of HBASE-6311 0.94.1 should get out soon. If push
> >> comes to shuff are folks ok with:
> >> 1. deprecating in a point release
> >> 2. maybe doing that in 0.94.2
> >> ?
> >>
> >> Lastly, I don't think we need to deprecate now in order in remove in
> 0.96.
> >>
> >>
> >> Thanks.
> >>
> >> -- Lars
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> ----- Original Message -----
> >> From: Ted Yu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; lars hofhansl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >> Cc:
> >> Sent: Monday, July 9, 2012 4:38 PM
> >> Subject: Re: HBase 0.94.1
> >>
> >> If possible, can you wait for the poll on metrics2 framework to close ?
> >> If the poll passes, 0.94.1 RC would carry deprecation for (old) metric
> >> classes.
> >>
> >> Thanks
> >>
> >> On Mon, Jul 9, 2012 at 4:07 PM, lars hofhansl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> >>
> >>> That's great, thanks for setting this up Roman!
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> There're only three issues left against 0.94.1.
> >>> I want to push it out quickly because of HBASE-6311.
> >>>
> >>> I am 90% sure there'll be a first RC this week.
> >>>
> >>> -- Lars
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> ----- Original Message -----
> >>> From: Roman Shaposhnik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >>> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; lars hofhansl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >>> Cc:
> >>> Sent: Monday, July 9, 2012 8:35 AM
> >>> Subject: Re: HBase 0.94.1
> >>>
> >>> On Thu, Jul 5, 2012 at 5:36 PM, lars hofhansl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >> wrote:
> >>>> Hi All,
> >>>>
> >>>> I did a pass through all issues against 0.94.1, retargeted some, fixed
> >>> some others.
> >>>> There're still 13 Major and 1 Minor issue left. Please look through
> the
> >>> issue that you have filed (or are working on),
> >>>> and make a call whether you want this should hold up the next 0.94
> >>> release. If not, please retarget to 0.94.2
> >>>> (Or mail me offline if you have questions).
> >>>
> >>> Question: what's the likelihood of 0.94.1 release within next couple

If you go to one of the download mirrors and click "stable" it brings you
to a 0.92.1 release, not a 0.94.0 release.
For example: http://www.bizdirusa.com/mirrors/apache/hbase/stable/

What is a user supposed to conclude from that?  That 0.94 is not yet stable?
Greg

On Mon, Jul 9, 2012 at 6:09 PM, Ted Yu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Andy:
> Good questions.
>
> The fact that HBASE-6311 is deemed by Lars to be an important fix adds
> support for my reasoning.
>
> I read the posts under 'ANN: The third hbase 0.94.0 release candidate is
> available for download' again.
>
> There was discussion on 'Dictionary WAL compression making replication not
> functional' which later was marked as experimental.
> This message from LarsH on May 13th is notable:
>
> 'If there are no -1's by Wed, May 16th, I'll release RC4 as 0.94.0.'
>
> To answer the last question below, I think we should allow ample time for
> HBase users to try out the RC before declaration of the release.
> We're building something that one day would take away significant chunk of
> market share from traditional RDBMS vendors. Quality should always be our
> top priority.
>
> I would anticipate wider participation in validating 0.94.1 this time.
> To my knowledge, Cloudera, Huawei and Taobao have all been actively testing
> 0.94 builds for some time. That was why critical issues were raised.
> This should have laid better foundation for the release of 0.94.1
>
> Cheers
>
> On Mon, Jul 9, 2012 at 5:43 PM, Andrew Purtell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >wrote:
>
> > Ted,
> >
> > Please explain in more detail why 0.94.0 was not a stable release. And
> > what about 0.94.1 is different that it should be considered stable now?
> And
> > since 0.94.0 was, as you contend, an unstable release, how did it get by
> > the RC process and what can we do to improve the RC process so that does
> > not happen again? Thanks.
> >
> >     - Andy
> >
> > On Jul 9, 2012, at 5:04 PM, Ted Yu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > 0.94.0 was not a stable release.
> > > I hope 0.94.1 would be stable. My rationale was that deprecating
> current
> > > metric classes in the first stable release of 0.94 should be
> acceptable.
> > >
> > > I would humbly listen to other people's opinions, of course.
> > >
> > > Cheers
> > >
> > > On Mon, Jul 9, 2012 at 4:46 PM, lars hofhansl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > >> 0.94 is already out and did not have these deprecated. So deprecating
> > them
> > >> now in a point release is a bit strange.
> > >> Not -1'ing it, just raising that thought here.
> > >>
> > >> As said below because of HBASE-6311 0.94.1 should get out soon. If
> push
> > >> comes to shuff are folks ok with:
> > >> 1. deprecating in a point release
> > >> 2. maybe doing that in 0.94.2
> > >> ?
> > >>
> > >> Lastly, I don't think we need to deprecate now in order in remove in
> > 0.96.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Thanks.
> > >>
> > >> -- Lars
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> ----- Original Message -----
> > >> From: Ted Yu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > >> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; lars hofhansl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > >> Cc:
> > >> Sent: Monday, July 9, 2012 4:38 PM
> > >> Subject: Re: HBase 0.94.1
> > >>
> > >> If possible, can you wait for the poll on metrics2 framework to close
> ?
> > >> If the poll passes, 0.94.1 RC would carry deprecation for (old) metric
> > >> classes.
> > >>
> > >> Thanks
> > >>
> > >> On Mon, Jul 9, 2012 at 4:07 PM, lars hofhansl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> That's great, thanks for setting this up Roman!
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> There're only three issues left against 0.94.1.
> > >>> I want to push it out quickly because of HBASE-6311.
> > >>>
> > >>> I am 90% sure there'll be a first RC this week.
> > >>>
> > >>> -- Lars
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> ----- Original Message -----
> > >>> From: Roman Shaposhnik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > >>> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; lars hofhansl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > >>> Cc:
> > >>> Sent: Monday, July 9, 2012 8:35 AM
> > >>> Subject: Re: HBase 0.94.1

I think HBASE-6284 should go to 0.94.1
It provides batching for Puts and Deletes. This is an important speedup and
was requested by some users.

Thanks

On Thu, Jul 5, 2012 at 5:36 PM, lars hofhansl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Hi All,
>
> I did a pass through all issues against 0.94.1, retargeted some, fixed
> some others.
> There're still 13 Major and 1 Minor issue left. Please look through the
> issue that you have filed (or are working on),
> and make a call whether you want this should hold up the next 0.94
> release. If not, please retarget to 0.94.2
> (Or mail me offline if you have questions).
>
> Obviously we'll fix the Blocker/Critical issues before the next release.
>
> Thanks.
>
> -- Lars
>
>

Whether 0.94.0 was stable or not is orthorgonal to whether an API can be deprecated in a point release or not, no?

Since we appear to have critical mass of support to do that, can you file a jira w/ patch in the next two days?
Holding up an 0.94.1RC to deprecate the old metric system seems counterproductive.

Lastly, please refrain from personal attacks like the ones below. We're all doing our best to get HBase to the most stable point.
-- Lars
________________________________
From: Ted Yu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, July 9, 2012 6:09 PM
Subject: Re: HBase 0.94.1

Andy:
Good questions.

The fact that HBASE-6311 is deemed by Lars to be an important fix adds
support for my reasoning.

I read the posts under 'ANN: The third hbase 0.94.0 release candidate is
available for download' again.

There was discussion on 'Dictionary WAL compression making replication not
functional' which later was marked as experimental.
This message from LarsH on May 13th is notable:

'If there are no -1's by Wed, May 16th, I'll release RC4 as 0.94.0.'

To answer the last question below, I think we should allow ample time for
HBase users to try out the RC before declaration of the release.
We're building something that one day would take away significant chunk of
market share from traditional RDBMS vendors. Quality should always be our
top priority.

I would anticipate wider participation in validating 0.94.1 this time.
To my knowledge, Cloudera, Huawei and Taobao have all been actively testing
0.94 builds for some time. That was why critical issues were raised.
This should have laid better foundation for the release of 0.94.1

Cheers

On Mon, Jul 9, 2012 at 5:43 PM, Andrew Purtell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:

> Ted,
>
> Please explain in more detail why 0.94.0 was not a stable release. And
> what about 0.94.1 is different that it should be considered stable now? And
> since 0.94.0 was, as you contend, an unstable release, how did it get by
> the RC process and what can we do to improve the RC process so that does
> not happen again? Thanks.
>
>     - Andy
>
> On Jul 9, 2012, at 5:04 PM, Ted Yu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > 0.94.0 was not a stable release.
> > I hope 0.94.1 would be stable. My rationale was that deprecating current
> > metric classes in the first stable release of 0.94 should be acceptable.
> >
> > I would humbly listen to other people's opinions, of course.
> >
> > Cheers
> >
> > On Mon, Jul 9, 2012 at 4:46 PM, lars hofhansl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> >
> >> 0.94 is already out and did not have these deprecated. So deprecating
> them
> >> now in a point release is a bit strange.
> >> Not -1'ing it, just raising that thought here.
> >>
> >> As said below because of HBASE-6311 0.94.1 should get out soon. If push
> >> comes to shuff are folks ok with:
> >> 1. deprecating in a point release
> >> 2. maybe doing that in 0.94.2
> >> ?
> >>
> >> Lastly, I don't think we need to deprecate now in order in remove in
> 0.96.
> >>
> >>
> >> Thanks.
> >>
> >> -- Lars
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> ----- Original Message -----
> >> From: Ted Yu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; lars hofhansl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >> Cc:
> >> Sent: Monday, July 9, 2012 4:38 PM
> >> Subject: Re: HBase 0.94.1
> >>
> >> If possible, can you wait for the poll on metrics2 framework to close ?
> >> If the poll passes, 0.94.1 RC would carry deprecation for (old) metric
> >> classes.
> >>
> >> Thanks
> >>
> >> On Mon, Jul 9, 2012 at 4:07 PM, lars hofhansl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> >>
> >>> That's great, thanks for setting this up Roman!
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> There're only three issues left against 0.94.1.
> >>> I want to push it out quickly because of HBASE-6311.
> >>>
> >>> I am 90% sure there'll be a first RC this week.
> >>>
> >>> -- Lars
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> ----- Original Message -----
> >>> From: Roman Shaposhnik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >>> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; lars hofhansl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >>> Cc:

Ted, you talk about the necessity of stable releases and then you keep adding delay to the release of 0.94.1 which has an important fix it.

________________________________
 From: Ted Yu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; lars hofhansl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, July 9, 2012 8:59 PM
Subject: Re: HBase 0.94.1
 

I think HBASE-6284 should go to 0.94.1
It provides batching for Puts and Deletes. This is an important speedup and was requested by some users.

Thanks
On Thu, Jul 5, 2012 at 5:36 PM, lars hofhansl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

Hi All,
>
>I did a pass through all issues against 0.94.1, retargeted some, fixed some others.
>There're still 13 Major and 1 Minor issue left. Please look through the issue that you have filed (or are working on),
>and make a call whether you want this should hold up the next 0.94 release. If not, please retarget to 0.94.2
>(Or mail me offline if you have questions).
>
>Obviously we'll fix the Blocker/Critical issues before the next release.
>
>Thanks.
>
>-- Lars
>
>

I can't follow issues@ volume and don't know what to make of dist/. The questions I asked were not rhetorical. What I remember about 0.94.0 was it passed RC, I've been working on issues with 0.94 against 2.0 (but that's tagged alpha) and was surprised by the flat assessment because it seems to cover 0.94 + 1.0 as well.

On Jul 9, 2012, at 6:34 PM, Gregory Chanan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> If you go to one of the download mirrors and click "stable" it brings you
> to a 0.92.1 release, not a 0.94.0 release.
> For example: http://www.bizdirusa.com/mirrors/apache/hbase/stable/
>
> What is a user supposed to conclude from that?  That 0.94 is not yet stable?
> Greg
>
> On Mon, Jul 9, 2012 at 6:09 PM, Ted Yu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Andy:
>> Good questions.
>>
>> The fact that HBASE-6311 is deemed by Lars to be an important fix adds
>> support for my reasoning.
>>
>> I read the posts under 'ANN: The third hbase 0.94.0 release candidate is
>> available for download' again.
>>
>> There was discussion on 'Dictionary WAL compression making replication not
>> functional' which later was marked as experimental.
>> This message from LarsH on May 13th is notable:
>>
>> 'If there are no -1's by Wed, May 16th, I'll release RC4 as 0.94.0.'
>>
>> To answer the last question below, I think we should allow ample time for
>> HBase users to try out the RC before declaration of the release.
>> We're building something that one day would take away significant chunk of
>> market share from traditional RDBMS vendors. Quality should always be our
>> top priority.
>>
>> I would anticipate wider participation in validating 0.94.1 this time.
>> To my knowledge, Cloudera, Huawei and Taobao have all been actively testing
>> 0.94 builds for some time. That was why critical issues were raised.
>> This should have laid better foundation for the release of 0.94.1
>>
>> Cheers
>>
>> On Mon, Jul 9, 2012 at 5:43 PM, Andrew Purtell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>> wrote:
>>
>>> Ted,
>>>
>>> Please explain in more detail why 0.94.0 was not a stable release. And
>>> what about 0.94.1 is different that it should be considered stable now?
>> And
>>> since 0.94.0 was, as you contend, an unstable release, how did it get by
>>> the RC process and what can we do to improve the RC process so that does
>>> not happen again? Thanks.
>>>
>>>    - Andy
>>>
>>> On Jul 9, 2012, at 5:04 PM, Ted Yu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> 0.94.0 was not a stable release.
>>>> I hope 0.94.1 would be stable. My rationale was that deprecating
>> current
>>>> metric classes in the first stable release of 0.94 should be
>> acceptable.
>>>>
>>>> I would humbly listen to other people's opinions, of course.
>>>>
>>>> Cheers
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Jul 9, 2012 at 4:46 PM, lars hofhansl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> 0.94 is already out and did not have these deprecated. So deprecating
>>> them
>>>>> now in a point release is a bit strange.
>>>>> Not -1'ing it, just raising that thought here.
>>>>>
>>>>> As said below because of HBASE-6311 0.94.1 should get out soon. If
>> push
>>>>> comes to shuff are folks ok with:
>>>>> 1. deprecating in a point release
>>>>> 2. maybe doing that in 0.94.2
>>>>> ?
>>>>>
>>>>> Lastly, I don't think we need to deprecate now in order in remove in
>>> 0.96.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks.
>>>>>
>>>>> -- Lars
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>>> From: Ted Yu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>>>> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; lars hofhansl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>>>> Cc:
>>>>> Sent: Monday, July 9, 2012 4:38 PM
>>>>> Subject: Re: HBase 0.94.1
>>>>>
>>>>> If possible, can you wait for the poll on metrics2 framework to close
>> ?
>>>>> If the poll passes, 0.94.1 RC would carry deprecation for (old) metric
>>>>> classes.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks
>>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, Jul 9, 2012 at 4:07 PM, lars hofhansl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> That's great, thanks for setting this up Roman!
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There're only three issues left against 0.94.1.

bq. can you file a jira w/ patch in the next two days?

Sure. I sent out request to close the poll early in another email thread.
I will start preparing a patch today and am planning to run the test suite.
If I don't get objection in the other thread, I will create the JIRA early
Wednesday.

Lastly I want to apologize for the misunderstanding my previous email might
have caused.

0.94.0 contains performance improvements no other releases have offered. I
am positive on the prosperity of future 0.94 releases.

Cheers

On Mon, Jul 9, 2012 at 9:15 PM, lars hofhansl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Whether 0.94.0 was stable or not is orthorgonal to whether an API can be
> deprecated in a point release or not, no?
>
> Since we appear to have critical mass of support to do that, can you file
> a jira w/ patch in the next two days?
> Holding up an 0.94.1RC to deprecate the old metric system seems
> counterproductive.
>
> Lastly, please refrain from personal attacks like the ones below. We're
> all doing our best to get HBase to the most stable point.
>
>
> -- Lars
> ________________________________
> From: Ted Yu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Monday, July 9, 2012 6:09 PM
> Subject: Re: HBase 0.94.1
>
> Andy:
> Good questions.
>
> The fact that HBASE-6311 is deemed by Lars to be an important fix adds
> support for my reasoning.
>
> I read the posts under 'ANN: The third hbase 0.94.0 release candidate is
> available for download' again.
>
> There was discussion on 'Dictionary WAL compression making replication not
> functional' which later was marked as experimental.
> This message from LarsH on May 13th is notable:
>
> 'If there are no -1's by Wed, May 16th, I'll release RC4 as 0.94.0.'
>
> To answer the last question below, I think we should allow ample time for
> HBase users to try out the RC before declaration of the release.
> We're building something that one day would take away significant chunk of
> market share from traditional RDBMS vendors. Quality should always be our
> top priority.
>
> I would anticipate wider participation in validating 0.94.1 this time.
> To my knowledge, Cloudera, Huawei and Taobao have all been actively testing
> 0.94 builds for some time. That was why critical issues were raised.
> This should have laid better foundation for the release of 0.94.1
>
> Cheers
>
> On Mon, Jul 9, 2012 at 5:43 PM, Andrew Purtell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >wrote:
>
> > Ted,
> >
> > Please explain in more detail why 0.94.0 was not a stable release. And
> > what about 0.94.1 is different that it should be considered stable now?
> And
> > since 0.94.0 was, as you contend, an unstable release, how did it get by
> > the RC process and what can we do to improve the RC process so that does
> > not happen again? Thanks.
> >
> >     - Andy
> >
> > On Jul 9, 2012, at 5:04 PM, Ted Yu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > 0.94.0 was not a stable release.
> > > I hope 0.94.1 would be stable. My rationale was that deprecating
> current
> > > metric classes in the first stable release of 0.94 should be
> acceptable.
> > >
> > > I would humbly listen to other people's opinions, of course.
> > >
> > > Cheers
> > >
> > > On Mon, Jul 9, 2012 at 4:46 PM, lars hofhansl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > >> 0.94 is already out and did not have these deprecated. So deprecating
> > them
> > >> now in a point release is a bit strange.
> > >> Not -1'ing it, just raising that thought here.
> > >>
> > >> As said below because of HBASE-6311 0.94.1 should get out soon. If
> push
> > >> comes to shuff are folks ok with:
> > >> 1. deprecating in a point release
> > >> 2. maybe doing that in 0.94.2
> > >> ?
> > >>
> > >> Lastly, I don't think we need to deprecate now in order in remove in
> > 0.96.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Thanks.
> > >>
> > >> -- Lars
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> ----- Original Message -----
> > >> From: Ted Yu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > >> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; lars hofhansl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > >> Cc:

On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 1:46 AM, lars hofhansl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 0.94 is already out and did not have these deprecated. So deprecating them now in a point release is a bit strange.
> Not -1'ing it, just raising that thought here.
>
> As said below because of HBASE-6311 0.94.1 should get out soon. If push comes to shuff are folks ok with:
> 1. deprecating in a point release
> 2. maybe doing that in 0.94.2
> ?
>

In the past, we'd remove public APIs after deprecating them across a
full major release: i.e. we'd deprecate something we want to remove in
0.96.0 in 0.94.0 (not 0.94.1).  Are the metrics changes to public
"stable" APIs?  If so, I'd ask why change our convention now?   If
they are "evolving", we might bend the rules.

Regards, what goes into 0.94.1, its up to the release manager.  They
can entertain petitions regards what to include but ultimately its up
to the RM when it happens and what is in it.

St.Ack

On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 2:04 AM, Ted Yu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 0.94.0 was not a stable release.

The 0.94.0 is as 'stable' as any of our .0 releases have been.

> I hope 0.94.1 would be stable. My rationale was that deprecating current
> metric classes in the first stable release of 0.94 should be acceptable.
>

An argument that we can deprecate in a point release because the .0 is
not 'stable' -- or because a bad bug was found subsequent to release
-- isn't one.

St.Ack

On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 3:34 AM, Gregory Chanan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If you go to one of the download mirrors and click "stable" it brings you
> to a 0.92.1 release, not a 0.94.0 release.
> For example: http://www.bizdirusa.com/mirrors/apache/hbase/stable/
>
> What is a user supposed to conclude from that?  That 0.94 is not yet stable?
>

I'd usually update the stable pointer to the new .0 release but didn't
this time.  It was part oversight and partly the fact that we've not
brought 0.94 up fully at SU yet.

St.Ack

On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 9:37 AM, Stack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'd usually update the stable pointer to the new .0 release but didn't
> this time.  It was part oversight and partly the fact that we've not
> brought 0.94 up fully at SU yet.

To follow up on that, 0.94 is only on a dev cluster at the moment and
we're about to deploy a new refresh. One issue that's really a blocker
for us is:

https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-6310 "-ROOT- corruption
when .META. is using the old encoding scheme"

I can't have my clusters fail to boot after some outage because .META.
isn't reachable. We're still digging.

Another issue that I haven't looked into too much yet is that the new
hbck cannot be used on an old cluster.

Right now what I'm getting is not what I usually get but it's:

ERROR: .META. is found on more than one region.
ERROR: Encountered fatal error. Exiting...
Summary:
2 inconsistencies detected.
Status: INCONSISTENT

Although:
hbase(main):001:0> scan '-ROOT-'
ROW                                           COLUMN+CELL
12/07/10 16:51:58 INFO security.UserGroupInformation: JAAS
Configuration already set up for Hadoop, not re-installing.
 .META.,,1                                    column=info:regioninfo,
timestamp=1331755381142, value={NAME => '.META.,,1', STARTKEY => '',
ENDKEY => '', ENCODED => 1028785192,}
 .META.,,1                                    column=info:server,
timestamp=1341618049327, value=sfor3s40:10304
 .META.,,1
column=info:serverstartcode, timestamp=1341618049327,
value=1341515423853
 .META.,,1                                    column=info:v,
timestamp=1331755419291, value=\x00\x00
1 row(s) in 0.5370 seconds
So I guess it's something new we need to debug...

There is no annotation declaring whether the current metrics are stable API:

public class MetricsHistogram extends MetricsBase {

LarsH has endorsed marking the current metrics classes deprecated in his
later reply to this thread.

Correct me if my interpretation is wrong.

On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 9:23 AM, Stack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 1:46 AM, lars hofhansl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> > 0.94 is already out and did not have these deprecated. So deprecating
> them now in a point release is a bit strange.
> > Not -1'ing it, just raising that thought here.
> >
> > As said below because of HBASE-6311 0.94.1 should get out soon. If push
> comes to shuff are folks ok with:
> > 1. deprecating in a point release
> > 2. maybe doing that in 0.94.2
> > ?
> >
>
> In the past, we'd remove public APIs after deprecating them across a
> full major release: i.e. we'd deprecate something we want to remove in
> 0.96.0 in 0.94.0 (not 0.94.1).  Are the metrics changes to public
> "stable" APIs?  If so, I'd ask why change our convention now?   If
> they are "evolving", we might bend the rules.
>
> Regards, what goes into 0.94.1, its up to the release manager.  They
> can entertain petitions regards what to include but ultimately its up
> to the RM when it happens and what is in it.
>
> St.Ack
>

I think there's an important distinction between the Java API of
metrics, and the implicit interface that the metrics themselves
expose. IMO, we can completely change the implementation of metrics
(e.g. class names and java APIs) so long as the actual names of the
metrics exposed are kept consistent. If we make a change there, we
should provide a deprecation path if at all possible - otherwise we
need a big warning on upgrade so that operators know what they're
getting themselves into.

-Todd

On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 9:57 AM, Ted Yu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> There is no annotation declaring whether the current metrics are stable API:
>
> public class MetricsHistogram extends MetricsBase {
>
> LarsH has endorsed marking the current metrics classes deprecated in his
> later reply to this thread.
>
> Correct me if my interpretation is wrong.
>
> On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 9:23 AM, Stack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 1:46 AM, lars hofhansl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> wrote:
>> > 0.94 is already out and did not have these deprecated. So deprecating
>> them now in a point release is a bit strange.
>> > Not -1'ing it, just raising that thought here.
>> >
>> > As said below because of HBASE-6311 0.94.1 should get out soon. If push
>> comes to shuff are folks ok with:
>> > 1. deprecating in a point release
>> > 2. maybe doing that in 0.94.2
>> > ?
>> >
>>
>> In the past, we'd remove public APIs after deprecating them across a
>> full major release: i.e. we'd deprecate something we want to remove in
>> 0.96.0 in 0.94.0 (not 0.94.1).  Are the metrics changes to public
>> "stable" APIs?  If so, I'd ask why change our convention now?   If
>> they are "evolving", we might bend the rules.
>>
>> Regards, what goes into 0.94.1, its up to the release manager.  They
>> can entertain petitions regards what to include but ultimately its up
>> to the RM when it happens and what is in it.
>>
>> St.Ack
>>

--
Todd Lipcon
Software Engineer, Cloudera

Todd brought up a good point.

MetricsBase class only exists in old metrics framework but not metrics2
framework.
So I am not sure whether the actual names of (all) the metrics exposed
would be kept consistent.

Since MetricsHistogram, etc, are public, we do need to deprecate them in
0.94 in case some users extend these classes.

Would listen to metrics experts' comments.

On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 10:14 AM, Todd Lipcon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> I think there's an important distinction between the Java API of
> metrics, and the implicit interface that the metrics themselves
> expose. IMO, we can completely change the implementation of metrics
> (e.g. class names and java APIs) so long as the actual names of the
> metrics exposed are kept consistent. If we make a change there, we
> should provide a deprecation path if at all possible - otherwise we
> need a big warning on upgrade so that operators know what they're
> getting themselves into.
>
> -Todd
>
> On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 9:57 AM, Ted Yu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > There is no annotation declaring whether the current metrics are stable
> API:
> >
> > public class MetricsHistogram extends MetricsBase {
> >
> > LarsH has endorsed marking the current metrics classes deprecated in his
> > later reply to this thread.
> >
> > Correct me if my interpretation is wrong.
> >
> > On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 9:23 AM, Stack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >> On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 1:46 AM, lars hofhansl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >> wrote:
> >> > 0.94 is already out and did not have these deprecated. So deprecating
> >> them now in a point release is a bit strange.
> >> > Not -1'ing it, just raising that thought here.
> >> >
> >> > As said below because of HBASE-6311 0.94.1 should get out soon. If
> push
> >> comes to shuff are folks ok with:
> >> > 1. deprecating in a point release
> >> > 2. maybe doing that in 0.94.2
> >> > ?
> >> >
> >>
> >> In the past, we'd remove public APIs after deprecating them across a
> >> full major release: i.e. we'd deprecate something we want to remove in
> >> 0.96.0 in 0.94.0 (not 0.94.1).  Are the metrics changes to public
> >> "stable" APIs?  If so, I'd ask why change our convention now?   If
> >> they are "evolving", we might bend the rules.
> >>
> >> Regards, what goes into 0.94.1, its up to the release manager.  They
> >> can entertain petitions regards what to include but ultimately its up
> >> to the RM when it happens and what is in it.
> >>
> >> St.Ack
> >>
>
>
>
> --
> Todd Lipcon
> Software Engineer, Cloudera
>

I don't think we should be concerned with people directly extending
the various metrics classes. They're not meant to be a "user API" IMO.
We should annotate them as private. But the external-facing interface
(ie the JMX output) should be treated as an interface.

If we have to break them at some point without a deprecation path, +1
for doing so in 0.96.

On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 10:32 AM, Ted Yu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Todd brought up a good point.
>
> MetricsBase class only exists in old metrics framework but not metrics2
> framework.
> So I am not sure whether the actual names of (all) the metrics exposed
> would be kept consistent.
>
> Since MetricsHistogram, etc, are public, we do need to deprecate them in
> 0.94 in case some users extend these classes.
>
> Would listen to metrics experts' comments.
>
> On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 10:14 AM, Todd Lipcon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> I think there's an important distinction between the Java API of
>> metrics, and the implicit interface that the metrics themselves
>> expose. IMO, we can completely change the implementation of metrics
>> (e.g. class names and java APIs) so long as the actual names of the
>> metrics exposed are kept consistent. If we make a change there, we
>> should provide a deprecation path if at all possible - otherwise we
>> need a big warning on upgrade so that operators know what they're
>> getting themselves into.
>>
>> -Todd
>>
>> On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 9:57 AM, Ted Yu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > There is no annotation declaring whether the current metrics are stable
>> API:
>> >
>> > public class MetricsHistogram extends MetricsBase {
>> >
>> > LarsH has endorsed marking the current metrics classes deprecated in his
>> > later reply to this thread.
>> >
>> > Correct me if my interpretation is wrong.
>> >
>> > On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 9:23 AM, Stack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 1:46 AM, lars hofhansl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> >> wrote:
>> >> > 0.94 is already out and did not have these deprecated. So deprecating
>> >> them now in a point release is a bit strange.
>> >> > Not -1'ing it, just raising that thought here.
>> >> >
>> >> > As said below because of HBASE-6311 0.94.1 should get out soon. If
>> push
>> >> comes to shuff are folks ok with:
>> >> > 1. deprecating in a point release
>> >> > 2. maybe doing that in 0.94.2
>> >> > ?
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> In the past, we'd remove public APIs after deprecating them across a
>> >> full major release: i.e. we'd deprecate something we want to remove in
>> >> 0.96.0 in 0.94.0 (not 0.94.1).  Are the metrics changes to public
>> >> "stable" APIs?  If so, I'd ask why change our convention now?   If
>> >> they are "evolving", we might bend the rules.
>> >>
>> >> Regards, what goes into 0.94.1, its up to the release manager.  They
>> >> can entertain petitions regards what to include but ultimately its up
>> >> to the RM when it happens and what is in it.
>> >>
>> >> St.Ack
>> >>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Todd Lipcon
>> Software Engineer, Cloudera
>>

--
Todd Lipcon
Software Engineer, Cloudera

I pulled HBASE-6310 into 0.94.1.
Once that is fixed I'll release an RC.
If metrics deprecation is not done by then it'll need to go into 0.94.2 (or potentially a future RC).
-- Lars
----- Original Message -----
From: Jean-Daniel Cryans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc:
Sent: Tuesday, July 10, 2012 9:55 AM
Subject: Re: HBase 0.94.1

On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 9:37 AM, Stack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'd usually update the stable pointer to the new .0 release but didn't
> this time.  It was part oversight and partly the fact that we've not
> brought 0.94 up fully at SU yet.

To follow up on that, 0.94 is only on a dev cluster at the moment and
we're about to deploy a new refresh. One issue that's really a blocker
for us is:

https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-6310 "-ROOT- corruption
when .META. is using the old encoding scheme"

I can't have my clusters fail to boot after some outage because .META.
isn't reachable. We're still digging.

Another issue that I haven't looked into too much yet is that the new
hbck cannot be used on an old cluster.

Right now what I'm getting is not what I usually get but it's:

ERROR: .META. is found on more than one region.
ERROR: Encountered fatal error. Exiting...
Summary:
2 inconsistencies detected.
Status: INCONSISTENT

Although:
hbase(main):001:0> scan '-ROOT-'
ROW                                           COLUMN+CELL
12/07/10 16:51:58 INFO security.UserGroupInformation: JAAS
Configuration already set up for Hadoop, not re-installing.
.META.,,1                                    column=info:regioninfo,
timestamp=1331755381142, value={NAME => '.META.,,1', STARTKEY => '',
ENDKEY => '', ENCODED => 1028785192,}
.META.,,1                                    column=info:server,
timestamp=1341618049327, value=sfor3s40:10304
.META.,,1
column=info:serverstartcode, timestamp=1341618049327,
value=1341515423853
.META.,,1                                    column=info:v,
timestamp=1331755419291, value=\x00\x00
1 row(s) in 0.5370 seconds
So I guess it's something new we need to debug...

Please take a look at my tentative patch on HBASE-6365 and provide your
feedback.

Cheers

On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 10:34 AM, Todd Lipcon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> I don't think we should be concerned with people directly extending
> the various metrics classes. They're not meant to be a "user API" IMO.
> We should annotate them as private. But the external-facing interface
> (ie the JMX output) should be treated as an interface.
>
> If we have to break them at some point without a deprecation path, +1
> for doing so in 0.96.
>
> On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 10:32 AM, Ted Yu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Todd brought up a good point.
> >
> > MetricsBase class only exists in old metrics framework but not metrics2
> > framework.
> > So I am not sure whether the actual names of (all) the metrics exposed
> > would be kept consistent.
> >
> > Since MetricsHistogram, etc, are public, we do need to deprecate them in
> > 0.94 in case some users extend these classes.
> >
> > Would listen to metrics experts' comments.
> >
> > On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 10:14 AM, Todd Lipcon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >> I think there's an important distinction between the Java API of
> >> metrics, and the implicit interface that the metrics themselves
> >> expose. IMO, we can completely change the implementation of metrics
> >> (e.g. class names and java APIs) so long as the actual names of the
> >> metrics exposed are kept consistent. If we make a change there, we
> >> should provide a deprecation path if at all possible - otherwise we
> >> need a big warning on upgrade so that operators know what they're
> >> getting themselves into.
> >>
> >> -Todd
> >>
> >> On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 9:57 AM, Ted Yu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> > There is no annotation declaring whether the current metrics are
> stable
> >> API:
> >> >
> >> > public class MetricsHistogram extends MetricsBase {
> >> >
> >> > LarsH has endorsed marking the current metrics classes deprecated in
> his
> >> > later reply to this thread.
> >> >
> >> > Correct me if my interpretation is wrong.
> >> >
> >> > On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 9:23 AM, Stack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 1:46 AM, lars hofhansl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >> >> wrote:
> >> >> > 0.94 is already out and did not have these deprecated. So
> deprecating
> >> >> them now in a point release is a bit strange.
> >> >> > Not -1'ing it, just raising that thought here.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > As said below because of HBASE-6311 0.94.1 should get out soon. If
> >> push
> >> >> comes to shuff are folks ok with:
> >> >> > 1. deprecating in a point release
> >> >> > 2. maybe doing that in 0.94.2
> >> >> > ?
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> In the past, we'd remove public APIs after deprecating them across a
> >> >> full major release: i.e. we'd deprecate something we want to remove
> in
> >> >> 0.96.0 in 0.94.0 (not 0.94.1).  Are the metrics changes to public
> >> >> "stable" APIs?  If so, I'd ask why change our convention now?   If
> >> >> they are "evolving", we might bend the rules.
> >> >>
> >> >> Regards, what goes into 0.94.1, its up to the release manager.  They
> >> >> can entertain petitions regards what to include but ultimately its up
> >> >> to the RM when it happens and what is in it.
> >> >>
> >> >> St.Ack
> >> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Todd Lipcon
> >> Software Engineer, Cloudera
> >>
>
>
>
> --
> Todd Lipcon
> Software Engineer, Cloudera
>

Metrics2 does place things in different jmx locations from metrics, so when
we move over it will be a bigger deal for ops.  We should do this in the
singularity if it all possible.

One possibility is that the classes in org.apache.hadoop.hbase.metrics can
be deprecated in 94.1 and we can follow hadoop's lead and make a metrics2
package in 0.96.
   - Deprecate PersistentMetricsTimeVaryingRate, MetricsString,
ExactCounterMetric, MetricsHistogram
   in 0.94.1
      - These are currently public with no annotation
      - I can actually see people using the MetricsHistogram
      and PersistentMetricsTimeVaryingRate in external code.
   - Remove PersistentMetricsTimeVaryingRate, MetricsString,
ExactCounterMetric, MetricsHistogram in
   0.98
   - Deprecate OperationMetrics, RegionServerDynamicMetrics, MasterMetrics,
   et al.
      - These are classes that actually wire our code up to the
      metrics infrastructure and publish numbers
      - There doesn't seem like all that much chance that people are using
      these classes in external code.
   - Remove OperationMetrics, RegionServerDynamicMetrics, MasterMetrics in
   0.96.0
      - Since these are very likely to be internal only removing in 0.96.0
      seems low impact.
   - In 0.96.0 create an org.apache.hadoop.hbase.metrics2 containing any
   needed Metric2 classes.
   - in 0.96.0 create replacement classes for publishing metrics to the
   metrics2 hadoop infra
For my money that seems like a pretty safe path. Thoughts ?

On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 10:50 AM, Ted Yu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Please take a look at my tentative patch on HBASE-6365 and provide your
> feedback.
>
> Cheers
>
> On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 10:34 AM, Todd Lipcon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > I don't think we should be concerned with people directly extending
> > the various metrics classes. They're not meant to be a "user API" IMO.
> > We should annotate them as private. But the external-facing interface
> > (ie the JMX output) should be treated as an interface.
> >
> > If we have to break them at some point without a deprecation path, +1
> > for doing so in 0.96.
> >
> > On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 10:32 AM, Ted Yu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Todd brought up a good point.
> > >
> > > MetricsBase class only exists in old metrics framework but not metrics2
> > > framework.
> > > So I am not sure whether the actual names of (all) the metrics exposed
> > > would be kept consistent.
> > >
> > > Since MetricsHistogram, etc, are public, we do need to deprecate them
> in
> > > 0.94 in case some users extend these classes.
> > >
> > > Would listen to metrics experts' comments.
> > >
> > > On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 10:14 AM, Todd Lipcon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> > >
> > >> I think there's an important distinction between the Java API of
> > >> metrics, and the implicit interface that the metrics themselves
> > >> expose. IMO, we can completely change the implementation of metrics
> > >> (e.g. class names and java APIs) so long as the actual names of the
> > >> metrics exposed are kept consistent. If we make a change there, we
> > >> should provide a deprecation path if at all possible - otherwise we
> > >> need a big warning on upgrade so that operators know what they're
> > >> getting themselves into.
> > >>
> > >> -Todd
> > >>
> > >> On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 9:57 AM, Ted Yu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >> > There is no annotation declaring whether the current metrics are
> > stable
> > >> API:
> > >> >
> > >> > public class MetricsHistogram extends MetricsBase {
> > >> >
> > >> > LarsH has endorsed marking the current metrics classes deprecated in
> > his
> > >> > later reply to this thread.
> > >> >
> > >> > Correct me if my interpretation is wrong.
> > >> >
> > >> > On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 9:23 AM, Stack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> >> On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 1:46 AM, lars hofhansl <
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > >> >> wrote:
> > >> >> > 0.94 is already out and did not have these deprecated. So