Here are my tests so far: checked sigs, crcs
build src tarsal with hadoop 2.3, 2.4.0, 2.5.0, 2.5.1, 2.5.2 and 2.6.0. Build with Hadoop-2.2.0 is broken as previous mail. I don’t think we should sink the RC for this. run local mode simple tests from shell Build with downstreamer checked dir layouts checked jar files checked version, tag, Checked the documentation. Both the index.html and book are in the old format. Nick did you copy the docs from master? This is unfortunate, but not a blocker to the RC. Run wiht LTT with 1M load on local mode and 5 node cluster. Seems fine. Run with different block encoding and compression algorithms Run 1.0.1 and 0.98.12 clients against 1.1.0 server, some smoke tests (list, scan) and LTT Going through the compat report: https://people.apache.org/~enis/1.0.1_1.1.0RC0_compat_report.html, a couple of interesting things: - https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-13551 missed 2 classes related to proc v2. They should not be Public. - AuthUtil should not be Public. This seems source incompatibility: - RegionScanner.nextRaw ( java.util.List<org.apache.hadoop.hbase.Cell> p1, int p2 ) [abstract] *:* boolean My vote would be -0, since the RegionScanner.nextRaw() although not used much is a concerning change and breaks source compat. Enis On Wed, May 6, 2015 at 1:07 PM, Nick Dimiduk <[email protected]> wrote: > I'm also traveling today. > > I've already extended the vote for this RC to Sunday, and since no one has > said this is a -1 -worthy regression, this candidate continues to stand. > > On Wed, May 6, 2015 at 12:16 PM, Andrew Purtell <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > Formally, -0 > > > > Given tomorrow is hbasecon perhaps it would be better to spin a RC on > > Friday? > > > > I can take HBASE-13637 but am sitting on a plane at the moment. Won't be > > able to get to it until tonight. > > > > > On May 6, 2015, at 10:43 AM, Nick Dimiduk <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > On Wed, May 6, 2015 at 10:13 AM, Andrew Purtell < > > [email protected]> > > > wrote: > > > > > >> I prefer to patch the POMs. > > > > > > Is this a formal -1? > > > > > > I've opened HBASE-13637 for tracking this issue. Let's get it fixed and > > > I'll spin a new RC tonight. > > > > > >>> On May 5, 2015, at 4:16 PM, Nick Dimiduk <[email protected]> wrote: > > >>> > > >>> So what's the conclusion here? Are we dropping 2.2 support or > updating > > >> the > > >>> poms and sinking the RC? > > >>> > > >>>> On Fri, May 1, 2015 at 7:47 AM, Sean Busbey <[email protected]> > > >> wrote: > > >>>> > > >>>> On Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 6:48 PM, Andrew Purtell < > [email protected]> > > >>>> wrote: > > >>>> > > >>>>> We could patch our POMs to reference the hadoop-minikdc artifact > > >>>>> independently of the rest of the Hadoop packages. It's standalone > and > > >>>>> rarely changes. > > >>>> +1. I've been using HBase to test Hadoop changes for isolating > > >> dependencies > > >>>> from downstream folks (HADOOP-11804), and I've just been leaving the > > >>>> hadoop-minikdc artifact as-is due to these very reasons. > > >>>> > > >>>> -- > > >>>> Sean > > >> > > >
