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/%3ccadcmmghtqx73jzte4schy04iqs9npzp3u84hm2sm7icl6r8...@mail.gmail.com%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) >>> // Software Engineer, Cloudera >>> // [email protected] >>
