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

Switch to Threaded View
HBase, mail # dev - HEADSUP: Working on new 0.96.0RC


Copy link to this message
-
Re: HEADSUP: Working on new 0.96.0RC
Jimmy Xiang 2013-10-09, 21:49
I prefer to have 9696 in. It's not just about merging.  I am also trying to
make sure splitting is good.  Currently, if a region is splitting, the two
daughters are wrote to meta at first. CM could move them around before
master knows about these two new regions. So they could be double-assigned
for a short while.  It could be a cause why ITBLL still shows data loss
somewhere.

I think we should make sure ITBLL runs well with no data loss before we
release 0.96.0.  Data loss is a big concern to me.
On Wed, Oct 9, 2013 at 2:33 PM, Devaraj Das <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> I am not sure I agree with this though. The reason being - HBASE-9696 was
> raised on Saturday and we have cut an RC after that. So why not another one
> now? For the 0.96.0 version, can we not say that "merge" should be used
> with caution. Also, it is not guaranteed that we will not face any new IT
> issues after 9696 goes in, right?
> Let's cut 0.96.0 now and fix remaining issues in 0.96.1. Thoughts?
>
>
> On Wed, Oct 9, 2013 at 2:17 PM, Elliott Clark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > At this point I think that we should have real clean IT test runs before
> > cutting another release.  And we can't really get that until the master
> > always comes back up (The issue stack was working on yesterday) and until
> > merging is stable.  I would like to see those two things fixed before
> 0.96
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Oct 9, 2013 at 1:38 PM, Devaraj Das <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> >
> > > I'd say we cut an RC now (without any more fixes).
> > >
> > >
> > > On Wed, Oct 9, 2013 at 12:45 PM, Jimmy Xiang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > > It's testing now. :)
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Oct 9, 2013 at 12:42 PM, Sergey Shelukhin <
> > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > > >wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > 9696 looks a little bit scary... did you guys test it on your rig?
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Wed, Oct 9, 2013 at 11:54 AM, Stack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > On Wed, Oct 9, 2013 at 10:45 AM, Enis Söztutar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > I just committed
> > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-9730for
> > > > > > > this.
> > > > > > > Time for another RC, what do you think?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > You know what they say, sixth time is the charm.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I can cut one no problem.  Just say.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Does your test rig pass?  Ours hasn't yet because of HBASE-9563;
> > > master
> > > > > is
> > > > > > killed and won't come back though restarted and tests fail.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Do we want HBASE-9696 in there?  It is currently under test.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > And HBASE-9724 Failed region split is not handled correctly by
> AM?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > But if you fellas need me to put up a new one, just say.  Just
> > takes
> > > a
> > > > > few
> > > > > > hours.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > St.Ack
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE
> > > > > NOTICE: This message is intended for the use of the individual or
> > > entity
> > > > to
> > > > > which it is addressed and may contain information that is
> > confidential,
> > > > > privileged and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the
> > > reader
> > > > > of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby
> > notified
> > > > that
> > > > > any printing, copying, dissemination, distribution, disclosure or
> > > > > forwarding of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you
> have
> > > > > received this communication in error, please contact the sender
> > > > immediately
> > > > > and delete it from your system. Thank You.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE
> > > NOTICE: This message is intended for the use of the individual or
> entity
> > to
> > > which it is addressed and may contain information that is confidential,
> > > privileged and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the
> reader
> > > of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified