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
Copy link to this message
-
Re: 0.94 Backports.
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:
>>>>>> The backporting situation for 0.94 is an exception it seems, because
>>> of
>>>>> the
>>>>>> fact that 96 is so late. But until 96 comes out, we can keep up the
>>>>> current
>>>>>> approach. It has worked mostly for the time being.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Enis
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 5:20 PM, Andrew Purtell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That said, let's make sure every backport has meaningful
>>> justification
>>>>>>> (determined by consensus).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 5:19 PM, Andrew Purtell <
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> -1 until we have an actual stable 0.96 release.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 3:15 PM, Elliott Clark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Lately there have been a lot of issues being committed to trunk
>>> and
>>>>>>>>> also back-ported to 0.94 (I've done it myself too).  Since we're
>>> so
>>>>> far
>>>>>>>>> into 0.94's release cycle should we think about not allowing
>> minor
>>>>>>>>> features
>>>>>>>>> and code clean ups to be back-ported ?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> Best regards,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>   - Andy
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet
>>> Hein
>>>>>>> (via Tom White)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> // Jonathan Hsieh (shay)
>>>>> // Software Engineer, Cloudera
>>>>> // [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> // Jonathan Hsieh (shay)
+
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
+
Ted Yu 2013-02-12, 03:27
+
Andrew Purtell 2013-02-12, 03:32
+
lars hofhansl 2013-02-12, 04:16