You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@hbase.apache.org by Mikhail Antonov <ol...@gmail.com> on 2016/06/11 00:00:41 UTC
Re: Branch for 1.3
Basically everything I waited for to land in 1.3 is done so it's time to
start rolling RCs.
in HBASE-15344 I'm thinking about supported versions, it looks like they
could be the same as for 1.2
I'm thinking to move Hadoop 2.4.* from Supported to Not Tested, to kind of
encourage people to move and have less versions to test. How many people
want to stick with Hadoop 2.4 yet upgrade to HBase 1.3?
-Mikhail
On Sun, May 15, 2016 at 11:53 PM, Sean Busbey <bu...@apache.org> wrote:
> On Sun, May 15, 2016 at 10:51 PM, Mikhail Antonov <ol...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > Thanks Sean, I indeed missed that looking at the list of issues. I'm not
> > familiar with Phoenix, but will try to look at the HBase side and help
> > reviewing patches here. I also see that HBASE-14845 is marked critical
> (and
> > 's been for long time), do you want that patch in for 1.3 or should we
> bump
> > it to 1.3.1/1.4.0?
> >
>
> I never managed to get it out of test scope, and I doubt it'll get
> done in a timely manner.
>
> Best to bump it out.
>
--
Thanks,
Michael Antonov
Re: Branch for 1.3
Posted by Dima Spivak <ds...@cloudera.com>.
Yeah, let me get a few machines going tomorrow and script something
together that uses git bisect along with clusterdock to stand up clusters
and run ITBLL. In the meantime, should we open a bug to address why the
test doesn't fail even when nodes are dropped from other CFs?
-Dima
On Wednesday, June 22, 2016, Ted Yu <yu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I think Dima's past work would help narrow down the patch(es) which
> introduced the regression:
>
> http://search-hadoop.com/m/YGbbPH6kn1dKe8j2
>
> A list of JIRAs which went into 1.3 but not 1.2.2 can be obtained.
> The scope of search should be considerably smaller once we have the list.
>
> FYI
>
> On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 3:15 PM, Elliott Clark <eclark@apache.org
> <javascript:;>> wrote:
>
> > So the errors are pretty sparse. We're running in a pretty reasonable
> test
> > cluster and only seeing 300 errors out of 39 billion.
> >
> > I'm going to start things running on two clusters with some logging, if
> > anyone has some other hints around what to look for. Or can get a better
> > repro that would be really helpful.
> >
> > On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 2:21 PM, Dima Spivak <dspivak@cloudera.com
> <javascript:;>> wrote:
> >
> > > Hey Elliott (et al.),
> > >
> > > I don’t have insight into the code that might have gone in to scanners,
> > but
> > > I do have the ability to get clusters with chaos monkeys set up quickly
> > > (and some machines in-house to run them), so I’d be happy to help if
> > > there’s anything I can do.
> > >
> > > -Dima
> > >
> > > On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 12:47 PM, Elliott Clark <eclark@apache.org
> <javascript:;>>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Could use some help in HBASE-16074 if anyone has a cluster that has
> > chaos
> > > > monkey set up. Right now it looks like there is some issue with
> > scanners
> > > > during failures giving corrupt data.
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 12:28 PM, Mikhail Antonov <
> > olorinbant@gmail.com <javascript:;>>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Hi guys,
> > > > >
> > > > > as we're stabilizing branch-1.3 builds and I also need to keep
> > release
> > > > > notes / tag for 1.3 accurate, could you please ping me on jira if
> you
> > > > > commit something to this branch (I read commit log, but it's easy
> to
> > > miss
> > > > > something in there)?
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks!
> > > > > Mikhail
> > > > >
> > > > > On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 3:24 PM, Mikhail Antonov <
> > olorinbant@gmail.com <javascript:;>
> > > >
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Yeah, branch-1.3 was cut some time ago and for a while most of
> > > commits
> > > > > > going to branch-1 would also go to it, but last few days
> > > > > > I'm trying to let only the following things go in:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > - criticals and blockers
> > > > > > - test fixes and other patches stabilizing the branch
> > > > > > - cherry-picks that were missed earlier.
> > > > > > - oneliners / doc changes etc
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Appreciate understanding and help :)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > -Mikhail
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 3:07 PM, Enis Söztutar <enis@apache.org
> <javascript:;>>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >> nvm, it is there already.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 3:06 PM, Enis Söztutar <enis@apache.org
> <javascript:;>>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> > Mikhail, I suggest that we create the branch-1.3 now so that
> you
> > > can
> > > > > >> > control what goes in and what not. branch-1 is free for all
> > > usually.
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > Enis
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 9:24 PM, Mikhail Antonov <
> > > > > olorinbant@gmail.com <javascript:;>>
> > > > > >> > wrote:
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> >> Suddenly we had kind of a spike in jiras filed with
> > > fixVersion=1.3
> > > > > last
> > > > > >> >> few
> > > > > >> >> days, and I really want to get it out one of this days, so I
> > want
> > > > to
> > > > > >> just
> > > > > >> >> stabilize it now.
> > > > > >> >>
> > > > > >> >> I kicked some jiras labeled as "major" out of 1.3, and if
> > there's
> > > > > >> >> something
> > > > > >> >> affecting branch-1.3 but not "Blocker" or "Critical" let's
> > target
> > > > it
> > > > > >> for
> > > > > >> >> 1.3.1 and / or 1.4.
> > > > > >> >>
> > > > > >> >> Thanks!
> > > > > >> >> Mikhail
> > > > > >> >>
> > > > > >> >> On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 11:52 AM, Mikhail Antonov <
> > > > > >> olorinbant@gmail.com <javascript:;>>
> > > > > >> >> wrote:
> > > > > >> >>
> > > > > >> >> > I'm not aware of any, and changes made to 1.3 shouldn't
> > render
> > > > 2.4
> > > > > >> >> > unsupportable.
> > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > >> >> > On the second thought, if we want to have to maintain less
> > > minor
> > > > > >> >> releases
> > > > > >> >> > in 1.* line and encourage folks to update,
> > > > > >> >> > we need to keep maintaining those Hadoop versions, yeah.
> > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > >> >> > Let's leave 2.4 as supported.
> > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > >> >> > -Mikhail
> > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > >> >> > On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 7:11 AM, Sean Busbey <
> > > > busbey@cloudera.com <javascript:;>>
> > > > > >> >> wrote:
> > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > >> >> >> On Fri, Jun 10, 2016 at 7:00 PM, Mikhail Antonov <
> > > > > >> olorinbant@gmail.com <javascript:;>
> > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > >> >> >> wrote:
> > > > > >> >> >> >
> > > > > >> >> >> > I'm thinking to move Hadoop 2.4.* from Supported to Not
> > > > Tested,
> > > > > to
> > > > > >> >> kind
> > > > > >> >> >> of
> > > > > >> >> >> > encourage people to move and have less versions to test.
> > How
> > > > > many
> > > > > >> >> people
> > > > > >> >> >> > want to stick with Hadoop 2.4 yet upgrade to HBase 1.3?
> > > > > >> >> >> >
> > > > > >> >> >>
> > > > > >> >> >> Hadoop 2.4 is still considered a "safe bet" stable release
> > for
> > > > > those
> > > > > >> >> >> in LTM mode.
> > > > > >> >> >>
> > > > > >> >> >> Our compatibility guidelines say that we won't force an
> > > > > incompatible
> > > > > >> >> >> dependency
> > > > > >> >> >> upgrade in a minor version. Do we know if Hadoop 2.4 ->
> 2.5
> > > > > includes
> > > > > >> >> any
> > > > > >> >> >> documented incompatibilities?
> > > > > >> >> >>
> > > > > >> >> >> --
> > > > > >> >> >> busbey
> > > > > >> >> >>
> > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > >> >> > --
> > > > > >> >> > Thanks,
> > > > > >> >> > Michael Antonov
> > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > >> >>
> > > > > >> >>
> > > > > >> >>
> > > > > >> >> --
> > > > > >> >> Thanks,
> > > > > >> >> Michael Antonov
> > > > > >> >>
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > Michael Antonov
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > Michael Antonov
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: Branch for 1.3
Posted by Ted Yu <yu...@gmail.com>.
I think Dima's past work would help narrow down the patch(es) which
introduced the regression:
http://search-hadoop.com/m/YGbbPH6kn1dKe8j2
A list of JIRAs which went into 1.3 but not 1.2.2 can be obtained.
The scope of search should be considerably smaller once we have the list.
FYI
On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 3:15 PM, Elliott Clark <ec...@apache.org> wrote:
> So the errors are pretty sparse. We're running in a pretty reasonable test
> cluster and only seeing 300 errors out of 39 billion.
>
> I'm going to start things running on two clusters with some logging, if
> anyone has some other hints around what to look for. Or can get a better
> repro that would be really helpful.
>
> On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 2:21 PM, Dima Spivak <ds...@cloudera.com> wrote:
>
> > Hey Elliott (et al.),
> >
> > I don’t have insight into the code that might have gone in to scanners,
> but
> > I do have the ability to get clusters with chaos monkeys set up quickly
> > (and some machines in-house to run them), so I’d be happy to help if
> > there’s anything I can do.
> >
> > -Dima
> >
> > On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 12:47 PM, Elliott Clark <ec...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> >
> > > Could use some help in HBASE-16074 if anyone has a cluster that has
> chaos
> > > monkey set up. Right now it looks like there is some issue with
> scanners
> > > during failures giving corrupt data.
> > >
> > > On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 12:28 PM, Mikhail Antonov <
> olorinbant@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi guys,
> > > >
> > > > as we're stabilizing branch-1.3 builds and I also need to keep
> release
> > > > notes / tag for 1.3 accurate, could you please ping me on jira if you
> > > > commit something to this branch (I read commit log, but it's easy to
> > miss
> > > > something in there)?
> > > >
> > > > Thanks!
> > > > Mikhail
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 3:24 PM, Mikhail Antonov <
> olorinbant@gmail.com
> > >
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Yeah, branch-1.3 was cut some time ago and for a while most of
> > commits
> > > > > going to branch-1 would also go to it, but last few days
> > > > > I'm trying to let only the following things go in:
> > > > >
> > > > > - criticals and blockers
> > > > > - test fixes and other patches stabilizing the branch
> > > > > - cherry-picks that were missed earlier.
> > > > > - oneliners / doc changes etc
> > > > >
> > > > > Appreciate understanding and help :)
> > > > >
> > > > > -Mikhail
> > > > >
> > > > > On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 3:07 PM, Enis Söztutar <en...@apache.org>
> > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >> nvm, it is there already.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 3:06 PM, Enis Söztutar <en...@apache.org>
> > > wrote:
> > > > >>
> > > > >> > Mikhail, I suggest that we create the branch-1.3 now so that you
> > can
> > > > >> > control what goes in and what not. branch-1 is free for all
> > usually.
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > Enis
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 9:24 PM, Mikhail Antonov <
> > > > olorinbant@gmail.com>
> > > > >> > wrote:
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> >> Suddenly we had kind of a spike in jiras filed with
> > fixVersion=1.3
> > > > last
> > > > >> >> few
> > > > >> >> days, and I really want to get it out one of this days, so I
> want
> > > to
> > > > >> just
> > > > >> >> stabilize it now.
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> >> I kicked some jiras labeled as "major" out of 1.3, and if
> there's
> > > > >> >> something
> > > > >> >> affecting branch-1.3 but not "Blocker" or "Critical" let's
> target
> > > it
> > > > >> for
> > > > >> >> 1.3.1 and / or 1.4.
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> >> Thanks!
> > > > >> >> Mikhail
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> >> On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 11:52 AM, Mikhail Antonov <
> > > > >> olorinbant@gmail.com>
> > > > >> >> wrote:
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> >> > I'm not aware of any, and changes made to 1.3 shouldn't
> render
> > > 2.4
> > > > >> >> > unsupportable.
> > > > >> >> >
> > > > >> >> > On the second thought, if we want to have to maintain less
> > minor
> > > > >> >> releases
> > > > >> >> > in 1.* line and encourage folks to update,
> > > > >> >> > we need to keep maintaining those Hadoop versions, yeah.
> > > > >> >> >
> > > > >> >> > Let's leave 2.4 as supported.
> > > > >> >> >
> > > > >> >> > -Mikhail
> > > > >> >> >
> > > > >> >> > On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 7:11 AM, Sean Busbey <
> > > busbey@cloudera.com>
> > > > >> >> wrote:
> > > > >> >> >
> > > > >> >> >> On Fri, Jun 10, 2016 at 7:00 PM, Mikhail Antonov <
> > > > >> olorinbant@gmail.com
> > > > >> >> >
> > > > >> >> >> wrote:
> > > > >> >> >> >
> > > > >> >> >> > I'm thinking to move Hadoop 2.4.* from Supported to Not
> > > Tested,
> > > > to
> > > > >> >> kind
> > > > >> >> >> of
> > > > >> >> >> > encourage people to move and have less versions to test.
> How
> > > > many
> > > > >> >> people
> > > > >> >> >> > want to stick with Hadoop 2.4 yet upgrade to HBase 1.3?
> > > > >> >> >> >
> > > > >> >> >>
> > > > >> >> >> Hadoop 2.4 is still considered a "safe bet" stable release
> for
> > > > those
> > > > >> >> >> in LTM mode.
> > > > >> >> >>
> > > > >> >> >> Our compatibility guidelines say that we won't force an
> > > > incompatible
> > > > >> >> >> dependency
> > > > >> >> >> upgrade in a minor version. Do we know if Hadoop 2.4 -> 2.5
> > > > includes
> > > > >> >> any
> > > > >> >> >> documented incompatibilities?
> > > > >> >> >>
> > > > >> >> >> --
> > > > >> >> >> busbey
> > > > >> >> >>
> > > > >> >> >
> > > > >> >> >
> > > > >> >> >
> > > > >> >> > --
> > > > >> >> > Thanks,
> > > > >> >> > Michael Antonov
> > > > >> >> >
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> >> --
> > > > >> >> Thanks,
> > > > >> >> Michael Antonov
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> >
> > > > >>
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > Michael Antonov
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > Michael Antonov
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: Branch for 1.3
Posted by Elliott Clark <ec...@apache.org>.
So the errors are pretty sparse. We're running in a pretty reasonable test
cluster and only seeing 300 errors out of 39 billion.
I'm going to start things running on two clusters with some logging, if
anyone has some other hints around what to look for. Or can get a better
repro that would be really helpful.
On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 2:21 PM, Dima Spivak <ds...@cloudera.com> wrote:
> Hey Elliott (et al.),
>
> I don’t have insight into the code that might have gone in to scanners, but
> I do have the ability to get clusters with chaos monkeys set up quickly
> (and some machines in-house to run them), so I’d be happy to help if
> there’s anything I can do.
>
> -Dima
>
> On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 12:47 PM, Elliott Clark <ec...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > Could use some help in HBASE-16074 if anyone has a cluster that has chaos
> > monkey set up. Right now it looks like there is some issue with scanners
> > during failures giving corrupt data.
> >
> > On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 12:28 PM, Mikhail Antonov <ol...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Hi guys,
> > >
> > > as we're stabilizing branch-1.3 builds and I also need to keep release
> > > notes / tag for 1.3 accurate, could you please ping me on jira if you
> > > commit something to this branch (I read commit log, but it's easy to
> miss
> > > something in there)?
> > >
> > > Thanks!
> > > Mikhail
> > >
> > > On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 3:24 PM, Mikhail Antonov <olorinbant@gmail.com
> >
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Yeah, branch-1.3 was cut some time ago and for a while most of
> commits
> > > > going to branch-1 would also go to it, but last few days
> > > > I'm trying to let only the following things go in:
> > > >
> > > > - criticals and blockers
> > > > - test fixes and other patches stabilizing the branch
> > > > - cherry-picks that were missed earlier.
> > > > - oneliners / doc changes etc
> > > >
> > > > Appreciate understanding and help :)
> > > >
> > > > -Mikhail
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 3:07 PM, Enis Söztutar <en...@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> nvm, it is there already.
> > > >>
> > > >> On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 3:06 PM, Enis Söztutar <en...@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> > Mikhail, I suggest that we create the branch-1.3 now so that you
> can
> > > >> > control what goes in and what not. branch-1 is free for all
> usually.
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Enis
> > > >> >
> > > >> > On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 9:24 PM, Mikhail Antonov <
> > > olorinbant@gmail.com>
> > > >> > wrote:
> > > >> >
> > > >> >> Suddenly we had kind of a spike in jiras filed with
> fixVersion=1.3
> > > last
> > > >> >> few
> > > >> >> days, and I really want to get it out one of this days, so I want
> > to
> > > >> just
> > > >> >> stabilize it now.
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> I kicked some jiras labeled as "major" out of 1.3, and if there's
> > > >> >> something
> > > >> >> affecting branch-1.3 but not "Blocker" or "Critical" let's target
> > it
> > > >> for
> > > >> >> 1.3.1 and / or 1.4.
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> Thanks!
> > > >> >> Mikhail
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 11:52 AM, Mikhail Antonov <
> > > >> olorinbant@gmail.com>
> > > >> >> wrote:
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> > I'm not aware of any, and changes made to 1.3 shouldn't render
> > 2.4
> > > >> >> > unsupportable.
> > > >> >> >
> > > >> >> > On the second thought, if we want to have to maintain less
> minor
> > > >> >> releases
> > > >> >> > in 1.* line and encourage folks to update,
> > > >> >> > we need to keep maintaining those Hadoop versions, yeah.
> > > >> >> >
> > > >> >> > Let's leave 2.4 as supported.
> > > >> >> >
> > > >> >> > -Mikhail
> > > >> >> >
> > > >> >> > On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 7:11 AM, Sean Busbey <
> > busbey@cloudera.com>
> > > >> >> wrote:
> > > >> >> >
> > > >> >> >> On Fri, Jun 10, 2016 at 7:00 PM, Mikhail Antonov <
> > > >> olorinbant@gmail.com
> > > >> >> >
> > > >> >> >> wrote:
> > > >> >> >> >
> > > >> >> >> > I'm thinking to move Hadoop 2.4.* from Supported to Not
> > Tested,
> > > to
> > > >> >> kind
> > > >> >> >> of
> > > >> >> >> > encourage people to move and have less versions to test. How
> > > many
> > > >> >> people
> > > >> >> >> > want to stick with Hadoop 2.4 yet upgrade to HBase 1.3?
> > > >> >> >> >
> > > >> >> >>
> > > >> >> >> Hadoop 2.4 is still considered a "safe bet" stable release for
> > > those
> > > >> >> >> in LTM mode.
> > > >> >> >>
> > > >> >> >> Our compatibility guidelines say that we won't force an
> > > incompatible
> > > >> >> >> dependency
> > > >> >> >> upgrade in a minor version. Do we know if Hadoop 2.4 -> 2.5
> > > includes
> > > >> >> any
> > > >> >> >> documented incompatibilities?
> > > >> >> >>
> > > >> >> >> --
> > > >> >> >> busbey
> > > >> >> >>
> > > >> >> >
> > > >> >> >
> > > >> >> >
> > > >> >> > --
> > > >> >> > Thanks,
> > > >> >> > Michael Antonov
> > > >> >> >
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> --
> > > >> >> Thanks,
> > > >> >> Michael Antonov
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >
> > > >> >
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > Michael Antonov
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Thanks,
> > > Michael Antonov
> > >
> >
>
Re: Branch for 1.3
Posted by Dima Spivak <ds...@cloudera.com>.
Hey Elliott (et al.),
I don’t have insight into the code that might have gone in to scanners, but
I do have the ability to get clusters with chaos monkeys set up quickly
(and some machines in-house to run them), so I’d be happy to help if
there’s anything I can do.
-Dima
On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 12:47 PM, Elliott Clark <ec...@apache.org> wrote:
> Could use some help in HBASE-16074 if anyone has a cluster that has chaos
> monkey set up. Right now it looks like there is some issue with scanners
> during failures giving corrupt data.
>
> On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 12:28 PM, Mikhail Antonov <ol...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Hi guys,
> >
> > as we're stabilizing branch-1.3 builds and I also need to keep release
> > notes / tag for 1.3 accurate, could you please ping me on jira if you
> > commit something to this branch (I read commit log, but it's easy to miss
> > something in there)?
> >
> > Thanks!
> > Mikhail
> >
> > On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 3:24 PM, Mikhail Antonov <ol...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Yeah, branch-1.3 was cut some time ago and for a while most of commits
> > > going to branch-1 would also go to it, but last few days
> > > I'm trying to let only the following things go in:
> > >
> > > - criticals and blockers
> > > - test fixes and other patches stabilizing the branch
> > > - cherry-picks that were missed earlier.
> > > - oneliners / doc changes etc
> > >
> > > Appreciate understanding and help :)
> > >
> > > -Mikhail
> > >
> > > On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 3:07 PM, Enis Söztutar <en...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> > >
> > >> nvm, it is there already.
> > >>
> > >> On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 3:06 PM, Enis Söztutar <en...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> > Mikhail, I suggest that we create the branch-1.3 now so that you can
> > >> > control what goes in and what not. branch-1 is free for all usually.
> > >> >
> > >> > Enis
> > >> >
> > >> > On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 9:24 PM, Mikhail Antonov <
> > olorinbant@gmail.com>
> > >> > wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> >> Suddenly we had kind of a spike in jiras filed with fixVersion=1.3
> > last
> > >> >> few
> > >> >> days, and I really want to get it out one of this days, so I want
> to
> > >> just
> > >> >> stabilize it now.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> I kicked some jiras labeled as "major" out of 1.3, and if there's
> > >> >> something
> > >> >> affecting branch-1.3 but not "Blocker" or "Critical" let's target
> it
> > >> for
> > >> >> 1.3.1 and / or 1.4.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> Thanks!
> > >> >> Mikhail
> > >> >>
> > >> >> On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 11:52 AM, Mikhail Antonov <
> > >> olorinbant@gmail.com>
> > >> >> wrote:
> > >> >>
> > >> >> > I'm not aware of any, and changes made to 1.3 shouldn't render
> 2.4
> > >> >> > unsupportable.
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> > On the second thought, if we want to have to maintain less minor
> > >> >> releases
> > >> >> > in 1.* line and encourage folks to update,
> > >> >> > we need to keep maintaining those Hadoop versions, yeah.
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> > Let's leave 2.4 as supported.
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> > -Mikhail
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> > On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 7:11 AM, Sean Busbey <
> busbey@cloudera.com>
> > >> >> wrote:
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> >> On Fri, Jun 10, 2016 at 7:00 PM, Mikhail Antonov <
> > >> olorinbant@gmail.com
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> >> wrote:
> > >> >> >> >
> > >> >> >> > I'm thinking to move Hadoop 2.4.* from Supported to Not
> Tested,
> > to
> > >> >> kind
> > >> >> >> of
> > >> >> >> > encourage people to move and have less versions to test. How
> > many
> > >> >> people
> > >> >> >> > want to stick with Hadoop 2.4 yet upgrade to HBase 1.3?
> > >> >> >> >
> > >> >> >>
> > >> >> >> Hadoop 2.4 is still considered a "safe bet" stable release for
> > those
> > >> >> >> in LTM mode.
> > >> >> >>
> > >> >> >> Our compatibility guidelines say that we won't force an
> > incompatible
> > >> >> >> dependency
> > >> >> >> upgrade in a minor version. Do we know if Hadoop 2.4 -> 2.5
> > includes
> > >> >> any
> > >> >> >> documented incompatibilities?
> > >> >> >>
> > >> >> >> --
> > >> >> >> busbey
> > >> >> >>
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> > --
> > >> >> > Thanks,
> > >> >> > Michael Antonov
> > >> >> >
> > >> >>
> > >> >>
> > >> >>
> > >> >> --
> > >> >> Thanks,
> > >> >> Michael Antonov
> > >> >>
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Thanks,
> > > Michael Antonov
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Thanks,
> > Michael Antonov
> >
>
Re: Branch for 1.3
Posted by Elliott Clark <ec...@apache.org>.
Could use some help in HBASE-16074 if anyone has a cluster that has chaos
monkey set up. Right now it looks like there is some issue with scanners
during failures giving corrupt data.
On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 12:28 PM, Mikhail Antonov <ol...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Hi guys,
>
> as we're stabilizing branch-1.3 builds and I also need to keep release
> notes / tag for 1.3 accurate, could you please ping me on jira if you
> commit something to this branch (I read commit log, but it's easy to miss
> something in there)?
>
> Thanks!
> Mikhail
>
> On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 3:24 PM, Mikhail Antonov <ol...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Yeah, branch-1.3 was cut some time ago and for a while most of commits
> > going to branch-1 would also go to it, but last few days
> > I'm trying to let only the following things go in:
> >
> > - criticals and blockers
> > - test fixes and other patches stabilizing the branch
> > - cherry-picks that were missed earlier.
> > - oneliners / doc changes etc
> >
> > Appreciate understanding and help :)
> >
> > -Mikhail
> >
> > On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 3:07 PM, Enis Söztutar <en...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> >> nvm, it is there already.
> >>
> >> On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 3:06 PM, Enis Söztutar <en...@apache.org> wrote:
> >>
> >> > Mikhail, I suggest that we create the branch-1.3 now so that you can
> >> > control what goes in and what not. branch-1 is free for all usually.
> >> >
> >> > Enis
> >> >
> >> > On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 9:24 PM, Mikhail Antonov <
> olorinbant@gmail.com>
> >> > wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> Suddenly we had kind of a spike in jiras filed with fixVersion=1.3
> last
> >> >> few
> >> >> days, and I really want to get it out one of this days, so I want to
> >> just
> >> >> stabilize it now.
> >> >>
> >> >> I kicked some jiras labeled as "major" out of 1.3, and if there's
> >> >> something
> >> >> affecting branch-1.3 but not "Blocker" or "Critical" let's target it
> >> for
> >> >> 1.3.1 and / or 1.4.
> >> >>
> >> >> Thanks!
> >> >> Mikhail
> >> >>
> >> >> On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 11:52 AM, Mikhail Antonov <
> >> olorinbant@gmail.com>
> >> >> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> > I'm not aware of any, and changes made to 1.3 shouldn't render 2.4
> >> >> > unsupportable.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > On the second thought, if we want to have to maintain less minor
> >> >> releases
> >> >> > in 1.* line and encourage folks to update,
> >> >> > we need to keep maintaining those Hadoop versions, yeah.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Let's leave 2.4 as supported.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > -Mikhail
> >> >> >
> >> >> > On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 7:11 AM, Sean Busbey <bu...@cloudera.com>
> >> >> wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> On Fri, Jun 10, 2016 at 7:00 PM, Mikhail Antonov <
> >> olorinbant@gmail.com
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> wrote:
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > I'm thinking to move Hadoop 2.4.* from Supported to Not Tested,
> to
> >> >> kind
> >> >> >> of
> >> >> >> > encourage people to move and have less versions to test. How
> many
> >> >> people
> >> >> >> > want to stick with Hadoop 2.4 yet upgrade to HBase 1.3?
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Hadoop 2.4 is still considered a "safe bet" stable release for
> those
> >> >> >> in LTM mode.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Our compatibility guidelines say that we won't force an
> incompatible
> >> >> >> dependency
> >> >> >> upgrade in a minor version. Do we know if Hadoop 2.4 -> 2.5
> includes
> >> >> any
> >> >> >> documented incompatibilities?
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> --
> >> >> >> busbey
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> > --
> >> >> > Thanks,
> >> >> > Michael Antonov
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> --
> >> >> Thanks,
> >> >> Michael Antonov
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Thanks,
> > Michael Antonov
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Thanks,
> Michael Antonov
>
Re: Branch for 1.3
Posted by Mikhail Antonov <ol...@gmail.com>.
Hi guys,
as we're stabilizing branch-1.3 builds and I also need to keep release
notes / tag for 1.3 accurate, could you please ping me on jira if you
commit something to this branch (I read commit log, but it's easy to miss
something in there)?
Thanks!
Mikhail
On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 3:24 PM, Mikhail Antonov <ol...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Yeah, branch-1.3 was cut some time ago and for a while most of commits
> going to branch-1 would also go to it, but last few days
> I'm trying to let only the following things go in:
>
> - criticals and blockers
> - test fixes and other patches stabilizing the branch
> - cherry-picks that were missed earlier.
> - oneliners / doc changes etc
>
> Appreciate understanding and help :)
>
> -Mikhail
>
> On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 3:07 PM, Enis Söztutar <en...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> nvm, it is there already.
>>
>> On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 3:06 PM, Enis Söztutar <en...@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>> > Mikhail, I suggest that we create the branch-1.3 now so that you can
>> > control what goes in and what not. branch-1 is free for all usually.
>> >
>> > Enis
>> >
>> > On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 9:24 PM, Mikhail Antonov <ol...@gmail.com>
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> >> Suddenly we had kind of a spike in jiras filed with fixVersion=1.3 last
>> >> few
>> >> days, and I really want to get it out one of this days, so I want to
>> just
>> >> stabilize it now.
>> >>
>> >> I kicked some jiras labeled as "major" out of 1.3, and if there's
>> >> something
>> >> affecting branch-1.3 but not "Blocker" or "Critical" let's target it
>> for
>> >> 1.3.1 and / or 1.4.
>> >>
>> >> Thanks!
>> >> Mikhail
>> >>
>> >> On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 11:52 AM, Mikhail Antonov <
>> olorinbant@gmail.com>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > I'm not aware of any, and changes made to 1.3 shouldn't render 2.4
>> >> > unsupportable.
>> >> >
>> >> > On the second thought, if we want to have to maintain less minor
>> >> releases
>> >> > in 1.* line and encourage folks to update,
>> >> > we need to keep maintaining those Hadoop versions, yeah.
>> >> >
>> >> > Let's leave 2.4 as supported.
>> >> >
>> >> > -Mikhail
>> >> >
>> >> > On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 7:11 AM, Sean Busbey <bu...@cloudera.com>
>> >> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> On Fri, Jun 10, 2016 at 7:00 PM, Mikhail Antonov <
>> olorinbant@gmail.com
>> >> >
>> >> >> wrote:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > I'm thinking to move Hadoop 2.4.* from Supported to Not Tested, to
>> >> kind
>> >> >> of
>> >> >> > encourage people to move and have less versions to test. How many
>> >> people
>> >> >> > want to stick with Hadoop 2.4 yet upgrade to HBase 1.3?
>> >> >> >
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Hadoop 2.4 is still considered a "safe bet" stable release for those
>> >> >> in LTM mode.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Our compatibility guidelines say that we won't force an incompatible
>> >> >> dependency
>> >> >> upgrade in a minor version. Do we know if Hadoop 2.4 -> 2.5 includes
>> >> any
>> >> >> documented incompatibilities?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> --
>> >> >> busbey
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > --
>> >> > Thanks,
>> >> > Michael Antonov
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> Thanks,
>> >> Michael Antonov
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Thanks,
> Michael Antonov
>
--
Thanks,
Michael Antonov
Re: Branch for 1.3
Posted by Mikhail Antonov <ol...@gmail.com>.
Yeah, branch-1.3 was cut some time ago and for a while most of commits
going to branch-1 would also go to it, but last few days
I'm trying to let only the following things go in:
- criticals and blockers
- test fixes and other patches stabilizing the branch
- cherry-picks that were missed earlier.
- oneliners / doc changes etc
Appreciate understanding and help :)
-Mikhail
On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 3:07 PM, Enis Söztutar <en...@apache.org> wrote:
> nvm, it is there already.
>
> On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 3:06 PM, Enis Söztutar <en...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > Mikhail, I suggest that we create the branch-1.3 now so that you can
> > control what goes in and what not. branch-1 is free for all usually.
> >
> > Enis
> >
> > On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 9:24 PM, Mikhail Antonov <ol...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Suddenly we had kind of a spike in jiras filed with fixVersion=1.3 last
> >> few
> >> days, and I really want to get it out one of this days, so I want to
> just
> >> stabilize it now.
> >>
> >> I kicked some jiras labeled as "major" out of 1.3, and if there's
> >> something
> >> affecting branch-1.3 but not "Blocker" or "Critical" let's target it for
> >> 1.3.1 and / or 1.4.
> >>
> >> Thanks!
> >> Mikhail
> >>
> >> On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 11:52 AM, Mikhail Antonov <olorinbant@gmail.com
> >
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> > I'm not aware of any, and changes made to 1.3 shouldn't render 2.4
> >> > unsupportable.
> >> >
> >> > On the second thought, if we want to have to maintain less minor
> >> releases
> >> > in 1.* line and encourage folks to update,
> >> > we need to keep maintaining those Hadoop versions, yeah.
> >> >
> >> > Let's leave 2.4 as supported.
> >> >
> >> > -Mikhail
> >> >
> >> > On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 7:11 AM, Sean Busbey <bu...@cloudera.com>
> >> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> On Fri, Jun 10, 2016 at 7:00 PM, Mikhail Antonov <
> olorinbant@gmail.com
> >> >
> >> >> wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> > I'm thinking to move Hadoop 2.4.* from Supported to Not Tested, to
> >> kind
> >> >> of
> >> >> > encourage people to move and have less versions to test. How many
> >> people
> >> >> > want to stick with Hadoop 2.4 yet upgrade to HBase 1.3?
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> Hadoop 2.4 is still considered a "safe bet" stable release for those
> >> >> in LTM mode.
> >> >>
> >> >> Our compatibility guidelines say that we won't force an incompatible
> >> >> dependency
> >> >> upgrade in a minor version. Do we know if Hadoop 2.4 -> 2.5 includes
> >> any
> >> >> documented incompatibilities?
> >> >>
> >> >> --
> >> >> busbey
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > --
> >> > Thanks,
> >> > Michael Antonov
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Thanks,
> >> Michael Antonov
> >>
> >
> >
>
--
Thanks,
Michael Antonov
Re: Branch for 1.3
Posted by Enis Söztutar <en...@apache.org>.
nvm, it is there already.
On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 3:06 PM, Enis Söztutar <en...@apache.org> wrote:
> Mikhail, I suggest that we create the branch-1.3 now so that you can
> control what goes in and what not. branch-1 is free for all usually.
>
> Enis
>
> On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 9:24 PM, Mikhail Antonov <ol...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Suddenly we had kind of a spike in jiras filed with fixVersion=1.3 last
>> few
>> days, and I really want to get it out one of this days, so I want to just
>> stabilize it now.
>>
>> I kicked some jiras labeled as "major" out of 1.3, and if there's
>> something
>> affecting branch-1.3 but not "Blocker" or "Critical" let's target it for
>> 1.3.1 and / or 1.4.
>>
>> Thanks!
>> Mikhail
>>
>> On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 11:52 AM, Mikhail Antonov <ol...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > I'm not aware of any, and changes made to 1.3 shouldn't render 2.4
>> > unsupportable.
>> >
>> > On the second thought, if we want to have to maintain less minor
>> releases
>> > in 1.* line and encourage folks to update,
>> > we need to keep maintaining those Hadoop versions, yeah.
>> >
>> > Let's leave 2.4 as supported.
>> >
>> > -Mikhail
>> >
>> > On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 7:11 AM, Sean Busbey <bu...@cloudera.com>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Fri, Jun 10, 2016 at 7:00 PM, Mikhail Antonov <olorinbant@gmail.com
>> >
>> >> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > I'm thinking to move Hadoop 2.4.* from Supported to Not Tested, to
>> kind
>> >> of
>> >> > encourage people to move and have less versions to test. How many
>> people
>> >> > want to stick with Hadoop 2.4 yet upgrade to HBase 1.3?
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> Hadoop 2.4 is still considered a "safe bet" stable release for those
>> >> in LTM mode.
>> >>
>> >> Our compatibility guidelines say that we won't force an incompatible
>> >> dependency
>> >> upgrade in a minor version. Do we know if Hadoop 2.4 -> 2.5 includes
>> any
>> >> documented incompatibilities?
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> busbey
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > Thanks,
>> > Michael Antonov
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Thanks,
>> Michael Antonov
>>
>
>
Re: Branch for 1.3
Posted by Enis Söztutar <en...@apache.org>.
Mikhail, I suggest that we create the branch-1.3 now so that you can
control what goes in and what not. branch-1 is free for all usually.
Enis
On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 9:24 PM, Mikhail Antonov <ol...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Suddenly we had kind of a spike in jiras filed with fixVersion=1.3 last few
> days, and I really want to get it out one of this days, so I want to just
> stabilize it now.
>
> I kicked some jiras labeled as "major" out of 1.3, and if there's something
> affecting branch-1.3 but not "Blocker" or "Critical" let's target it for
> 1.3.1 and / or 1.4.
>
> Thanks!
> Mikhail
>
> On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 11:52 AM, Mikhail Antonov <ol...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > I'm not aware of any, and changes made to 1.3 shouldn't render 2.4
> > unsupportable.
> >
> > On the second thought, if we want to have to maintain less minor releases
> > in 1.* line and encourage folks to update,
> > we need to keep maintaining those Hadoop versions, yeah.
> >
> > Let's leave 2.4 as supported.
> >
> > -Mikhail
> >
> > On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 7:11 AM, Sean Busbey <bu...@cloudera.com>
> wrote:
> >
> >> On Fri, Jun 10, 2016 at 7:00 PM, Mikhail Antonov <ol...@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > I'm thinking to move Hadoop 2.4.* from Supported to Not Tested, to
> kind
> >> of
> >> > encourage people to move and have less versions to test. How many
> people
> >> > want to stick with Hadoop 2.4 yet upgrade to HBase 1.3?
> >> >
> >>
> >> Hadoop 2.4 is still considered a "safe bet" stable release for those
> >> in LTM mode.
> >>
> >> Our compatibility guidelines say that we won't force an incompatible
> >> dependency
> >> upgrade in a minor version. Do we know if Hadoop 2.4 -> 2.5 includes any
> >> documented incompatibilities?
> >>
> >> --
> >> busbey
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Thanks,
> > Michael Antonov
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Thanks,
> Michael Antonov
>
Re: Branch for 1.3
Posted by Mikhail Antonov <ol...@gmail.com>.
Suddenly we had kind of a spike in jiras filed with fixVersion=1.3 last few
days, and I really want to get it out one of this days, so I want to just
stabilize it now.
I kicked some jiras labeled as "major" out of 1.3, and if there's something
affecting branch-1.3 but not "Blocker" or "Critical" let's target it for
1.3.1 and / or 1.4.
Thanks!
Mikhail
On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 11:52 AM, Mikhail Antonov <ol...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> I'm not aware of any, and changes made to 1.3 shouldn't render 2.4
> unsupportable.
>
> On the second thought, if we want to have to maintain less minor releases
> in 1.* line and encourage folks to update,
> we need to keep maintaining those Hadoop versions, yeah.
>
> Let's leave 2.4 as supported.
>
> -Mikhail
>
> On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 7:11 AM, Sean Busbey <bu...@cloudera.com> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Jun 10, 2016 at 7:00 PM, Mikhail Antonov <ol...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > I'm thinking to move Hadoop 2.4.* from Supported to Not Tested, to kind
>> of
>> > encourage people to move and have less versions to test. How many people
>> > want to stick with Hadoop 2.4 yet upgrade to HBase 1.3?
>> >
>>
>> Hadoop 2.4 is still considered a "safe bet" stable release for those
>> in LTM mode.
>>
>> Our compatibility guidelines say that we won't force an incompatible
>> dependency
>> upgrade in a minor version. Do we know if Hadoop 2.4 -> 2.5 includes any
>> documented incompatibilities?
>>
>> --
>> busbey
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Thanks,
> Michael Antonov
>
--
Thanks,
Michael Antonov
Re: Branch for 1.3
Posted by Mikhail Antonov <ol...@gmail.com>.
I'm not aware of any, and changes made to 1.3 shouldn't render 2.4
unsupportable.
On the second thought, if we want to have to maintain less minor releases
in 1.* line and encourage folks to update,
we need to keep maintaining those Hadoop versions, yeah.
Let's leave 2.4 as supported.
-Mikhail
On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 7:11 AM, Sean Busbey <bu...@cloudera.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 10, 2016 at 7:00 PM, Mikhail Antonov <ol...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > I'm thinking to move Hadoop 2.4.* from Supported to Not Tested, to kind
> of
> > encourage people to move and have less versions to test. How many people
> > want to stick with Hadoop 2.4 yet upgrade to HBase 1.3?
> >
>
> Hadoop 2.4 is still considered a "safe bet" stable release for those
> in LTM mode.
>
> Our compatibility guidelines say that we won't force an incompatible
> dependency
> upgrade in a minor version. Do we know if Hadoop 2.4 -> 2.5 includes any
> documented incompatibilities?
>
> --
> busbey
>
--
Thanks,
Michael Antonov
Re: Branch for 1.3
Posted by Sean Busbey <bu...@cloudera.com>.
On Fri, Jun 10, 2016 at 7:00 PM, Mikhail Antonov <ol...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I'm thinking to move Hadoop 2.4.* from Supported to Not Tested, to kind of
> encourage people to move and have less versions to test. How many people
> want to stick with Hadoop 2.4 yet upgrade to HBase 1.3?
>
Hadoop 2.4 is still considered a "safe bet" stable release for those
in LTM mode.
Our compatibility guidelines say that we won't force an incompatible dependency
upgrade in a minor version. Do we know if Hadoop 2.4 -> 2.5 includes any
documented incompatibilities?
--
busbey
Re: Branch for 1.3
Posted by Enis Söztutar <en...@apache.org>.
We should have a conclusion for HBASE-15406 (roll forward or backwards)
before 1.3.0.
Enis
On Fri, Jun 10, 2016 at 5:04 PM, Ted Yu <yu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> bq. How many people want to stick with Hadoop 2.4 yet upgrade to HBase 1.3?
>
> Seems like the above question should be asked on user@ also.
>
> On Fri, Jun 10, 2016 at 5:00 PM, Mikhail Antonov <ol...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Basically everything I waited for to land in 1.3 is done so it's time to
> > start rolling RCs.
> >
> > in HBASE-15344 I'm thinking about supported versions, it looks like they
> > could be the same as for 1.2
> >
> > I'm thinking to move Hadoop 2.4.* from Supported to Not Tested, to kind
> of
> > encourage people to move and have less versions to test. How many people
> > want to stick with Hadoop 2.4 yet upgrade to HBase 1.3?
> >
> > -Mikhail
> >
> > On Sun, May 15, 2016 at 11:53 PM, Sean Busbey <bu...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> > > On Sun, May 15, 2016 at 10:51 PM, Mikhail Antonov <
> olorinbant@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > > Thanks Sean, I indeed missed that looking at the list of issues. I'm
> > not
> > > > familiar with Phoenix, but will try to look at the HBase side and
> help
> > > > reviewing patches here. I also see that HBASE-14845 is marked
> critical
> > > (and
> > > > 's been for long time), do you want that patch in for 1.3 or should
> we
> > > bump
> > > > it to 1.3.1/1.4.0?
> > > >
> > >
> > > I never managed to get it out of test scope, and I doubt it'll get
> > > done in a timely manner.
> > >
> > > Best to bump it out.
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Thanks,
> > Michael Antonov
> >
>
Re: Branch for 1.3
Posted by Ted Yu <yu...@gmail.com>.
bq. How many people want to stick with Hadoop 2.4 yet upgrade to HBase 1.3?
Seems like the above question should be asked on user@ also.
On Fri, Jun 10, 2016 at 5:00 PM, Mikhail Antonov <ol...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Basically everything I waited for to land in 1.3 is done so it's time to
> start rolling RCs.
>
> in HBASE-15344 I'm thinking about supported versions, it looks like they
> could be the same as for 1.2
>
> I'm thinking to move Hadoop 2.4.* from Supported to Not Tested, to kind of
> encourage people to move and have less versions to test. How many people
> want to stick with Hadoop 2.4 yet upgrade to HBase 1.3?
>
> -Mikhail
>
> On Sun, May 15, 2016 at 11:53 PM, Sean Busbey <bu...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > On Sun, May 15, 2016 at 10:51 PM, Mikhail Antonov <ol...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > Thanks Sean, I indeed missed that looking at the list of issues. I'm
> not
> > > familiar with Phoenix, but will try to look at the HBase side and help
> > > reviewing patches here. I also see that HBASE-14845 is marked critical
> > (and
> > > 's been for long time), do you want that patch in for 1.3 or should we
> > bump
> > > it to 1.3.1/1.4.0?
> > >
> >
> > I never managed to get it out of test scope, and I doubt it'll get
> > done in a timely manner.
> >
> > Best to bump it out.
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Thanks,
> Michael Antonov
>