You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@hbase.apache.org by "Jim Kellerman (POWERSET)" <Ji...@microsoft.com> on 2009/01/09 02:57:05 UTC
0.19 release candidate?
With the resolution of HBASE-1104, 1096 and 1098, the only issue
still remaining is HBASE-856. Should we hold up making a release
candidate, or should HBASE-856 be pushed out to 0.19.1 and/or 0.20.0?
---
Jim Kellerman, Powerset (Live Search, Microsoft Corporation)
Re: 0.19 release candidate?
Posted by Andrew Purtell <ap...@apache.org>.
-1 on RC at this time. Please see HBASE-1124.
- Andy
Re: 0.19 release candidate?
Posted by Jean-Daniel Cryans <jd...@apache.org>.
+1 on pushing into 0.19.1 and +1 on RC.
J-D
On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 8:57 PM, Jim Kellerman (POWERSET) <
Jim.Kellerman@microsoft.com> wrote:
> With the resolution of HBASE-1104, 1096 and 1098, the only issue
> still remaining is HBASE-856. Should we hold up making a release
> candidate, or should HBASE-856 be pushed out to 0.19.1 and/or 0.20.0?
>
> ---
> Jim Kellerman, Powerset (Live Search, Microsoft Corporation)
>
>
>
Re: 0.19 release candidate?
Posted by stack <st...@duboce.net>.
+1 on moving HBASE-856 out.
I've been testing and can still break it but we can fix these other
issues in 0.20.0 (smile).
I'll put up an RC over the weekend unless objection.
St.Ack
Jim Kellerman (POWERSET) wrote:
> With the resolution of HBASE-1104, 1096 and 1098, the only issue
> still remaining is HBASE-856. Should we hold up making a release
> candidate, or should HBASE-856 be pushed out to 0.19.1 and/or 0.20.0?
>
> ---
> Jim Kellerman, Powerset (Live Search, Microsoft Corporation)
>
>
>
Re: 0.19 release candidate?
Posted by Tim Sell <tr...@gmail.com>.
+1 it's working great for me, for a while now. :)
2009/1/9 Andrew Purtell <ap...@apache.org>:
> +1 on pushing 856 to 0.19.1
> Annoying, sorry about that.
>
>> From: Andrew Purtell <ap...@yahoo.com>
>> +1 on pushing 856 to 0.19.0 and +1 on making a RC. If you
>> cut at rev 732908 (your commit for 1104), I'm already
>> testing the RC as we speak. :-)
>>
>> - Andy
>
>
>
>
Re: 0.19 release candidate?
Posted by Andrew Purtell <ap...@apache.org>.
+1 on pushing 856 to 0.19.1
Annoying, sorry about that.
> From: Andrew Purtell <ap...@yahoo.com>
> +1 on pushing 856 to 0.19.0 and +1 on making a RC. If you
> cut at rev 732908 (your commit for 1104), I'm already
> testing the RC as we speak. :-)
>
> - Andy
Re: 0.19 release candidate?
Posted by Andrew Purtell <ap...@apache.org>.
+1 on pushing 856 to 0.19.1
Annoying, sorry about that.
> From: Andrew Purtell <ap...@yahoo.com>
> +1 on pushing 856 to 0.19.0 and +1 on making a RC. If you
> cut at rev 732908 (your commit for 1104), I'm already
> testing the RC as we speak. :-)
>
> - Andy
Re: 0.19 release candidate?
Posted by Andrew Purtell <ap...@yahoo.com>.
> From: Jim Kellerman (POWERSET)
> With the resolution of HBASE-1104, 1096 and 1098, the only
> issue still remaining is HBASE-856. Should we hold up
> making a release candidate, or should HBASE-856 be pushed
> out to 0.19.1 and/or 0.20.0?
+1 on pushing 856 to 0.19.0 and +1 on making a RC. If you cut
at rev 732908 (your commit for 1104), I'm already testing the
RC as we speak. :-)
- Andy
Re: 0.19 release candidate?
Posted by Andrew Purtell <ap...@yahoo.com>.
> From: Jim Kellerman (POWERSET)
> With the resolution of HBASE-1104, 1096 and 1098, the only
> issue still remaining is HBASE-856. Should we hold up
> making a release candidate, or should HBASE-856 be pushed
> out to 0.19.1 and/or 0.20.0?
+1 on pushing 856 to 0.19.0 and +1 on making a RC. If you cut
at rev 732908 (your commit for 1104), I'm already testing the
RC as we speak. :-)
- Andy