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

Switch to Plain View
HBase, mail # dev - 0.94 Backports.


+
Elliott Clark 2013-02-07, 23:15
+
Jimmy Xiang 2013-02-07, 23:22
+
lars hofhansl 2013-02-07, 23:37
+
Andrew Purtell 2013-02-08, 01:19
+
Andrew Purtell 2013-02-08, 01:20
+
Enis Söztutar 2013-02-08, 19:56
+
Jonathan Hsieh 2013-02-12, 00:24
+
lars hofhansl 2013-02-12, 00:38
+
Jonathan Hsieh 2013-02-12, 00:42
+
Ted Yu 2013-02-12, 00:43
+
Ted Yu 2013-02-12, 00:32
+
Jonathan Hsieh 2013-02-12, 00:48
+
Stack 2013-02-12, 00:59
+
Enis Söztutar 2013-02-12, 01:35
+
Ted 2013-02-12, 01:40
+
Andrew Purtell 2013-02-12, 03:20
+
Jonathan Hsieh 2013-02-12, 03:32
+
Andrew Purtell 2013-02-12, 03:36
+
Jonathan Hsieh 2013-02-12, 03:45
+
Andrew Purtell 2013-02-12, 03:48
Copy link to this message
-
Re: 0.94 Backports.
Ted Yu 2013-02-12, 03:27
If you look at the comments in HBASE-7814, Lars' comment was logged at the
same time as my notice of reversion:

https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-7814?focusedCommentId=13576253&page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel#comment-13576253

FYI

On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 7:20 PM, Andrew Purtell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> I'm also concerned that the revert happened here while discussion was
> ongoing. Given the latest comments on the issue, this could have been
> handled by a new issue that replaces the offending code with reflection. I
> don't care about the revert per se but would ask we avoid making changes
> out from under a discussion until the matter is resolved with consensus. We
> will have cleaner revision history and less churn overall as a result. I
> know many of us have to-do lists of HBase JIRAs to retire, but there is no
> need to be hasty. Because we are all busy, unnecessary commit speed makes
> it more likely mistakes like this will slip by review in the first place
> too.
>
> For your consideration.
>
>
> On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 5:40 PM, Ted <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > No.
> > The release was cut before the revert.
> >
> > On Feb 11, 2013, at 5:35 PM, Enis Söztutar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > I was going to +1 the release, with the following checks I did:
> > > - Checked md5 sums
> > > - Checked gpg signature (gpg --verify )
> > > - Checked included documentation book.html, etc.
> > > - Running unit tests (passed on unsecure, secure)
> > > - Started in local mode, run LoadTestTool
> > > - integration tests (not working fully properly, but expected since
> > > HBASE-7521 is not in yet)
> > >
> > > I guess this means that the release candidate has sunk, right?
> > > Enis
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 4:59 PM, Stack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > >> Good catch Jon.
> > >>
> > >> We need to be vigilant here all.
> > >>
> > >> Incompatibilities cost users and those following behind us as they
> burn
> > >> cycles doing gymnastics trying to get over the incompatibility -- if
> it
> > is
> > >> possible to get over the incompatibility at all.  They make us look
> bad.
> > >> Worse, usually the incompatibility is found months later after we have
> > all
> > >> moved on and have long forgot what it was we committed (and even why)
> so
> > >> all the more reason to be on the look out at commit time.
> > >>
> > >> St.Ack
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 4:48 PM, Jonathan Hsieh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> Apache Hat: What a particular vendor chooses to puts in its releases
> > >>> shouldn't affect an Apache release and especially if we are breaking
> > >>> the
> > >>> project's versioning / compatibility rules.
> > >>>
> > >>> Jon.
> > >>>
> > >>> On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 4:32 PM, Ted Yu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >>>> I downloaded hadoop-0.20.2+737 from Cloudera website.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> I found getShortUserName() in UserGroupInformation
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Haven't checked other 0.20.x source code yet.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> FYI
> > >>>>
> > >>>> On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 4:24 PM, Jonathan Hsieh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > >>> wrote:
> > >>>>
> > >>>>> Hey guys, I saw HBASE-7814 [1] -- a backport committed to 0.94 that
> > >>>>> makes HBase 0.94 now require Hadoop 1.0 (instead of the older
> > >>>>> hadoops).  This was supposed to be a new requirement for hbase
> > 0.96.0.
> > >>>>> [2]
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Are we ok with making the next 0.94 upgrade incompatible?   (And if
> > we
> > >>>>> are we need to release note this kind of stuff).
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Jon.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-7814
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> [2]
> > >>
> >
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/hbase-dev/201210.mbox/%[EMAIL PROTECTED]%3E
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 11:56 AM, Enis Söztutar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> > >>> wrote:
> > >
+
Andrew Purtell 2013-02-12, 03:32
+
lars hofhansl 2013-02-12, 04:16