Ok. Test pass if I run it alone: mvn clean test -P runSmallTests -Djava.net.preferIPv4Stack=true -Dtest=org.apache.hadoop.hbase.coprocessor.TestRegionObserverScannerOpenHook
------------------------------------------------------- T E S T S ------------------------------------------------------- Running org.apache.hadoop.hbase.coprocessor.TestRegionObserverScannerOpenHook Tests run: 3, Failures: 0, Errors: 0, Skipped: 0, Time elapsed: 11.642 sec Results : Tests run: 3, Failures: 0, Errors: 0, Skipped: 0 And finally passed on another one: Results : Tests run: 1359, Failures: 0, Errors: 0, Skipped: 13 [INFO] ------------------------------------------------------------------------ [INFO] BUILD SUCCESS [INFO] ------------------------------------------------------------------------ [INFO] Total time: 1:33:34.925s [INFO] Finished at: Tue Jul 02 16:37:59 EDT 2013 [INFO] Final Memory: 44M/594M [INFO] ------------------------------------------------------------------------ So it's all +1 for me. JM 2013/7/2 Elliott Clark <[email protected]>: > +1 > > untared. > Checked the sig. > Ran Ycsb. > Ran PE. > upgraded from 94.8. > > On Tue, Jul 2, 2013 at 11:32 AM, lars hofhansl <[email protected]> wrote: >> passes fine here too >> >> >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: Jean-Daniel Cryans <[email protected]> >> To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> >> Cc: >> Sent: Tuesday, July 2, 2013 11:22 AM >> Subject: Re: [ANNOUNCE] The 1st hbase 0.94.9 release candidate is available >> for download >> >> Yup: >> >> Running org.apache.hadoop.hbase.coprocessor.TestRegionObserverScannerOpenHook >> Tests run: 3, Failures: 0, Errors: 0, Skipped: 0, Time elapsed: 22.756 sec >> >> Have you looked at the log to see on what error it fails? >> >> J-D >> >> On Tue, Jul 2, 2013 at 11:08 AM, Jean-Marc Spaggiari >> <[email protected]> wrote: >>> JD, does TestRegionObserverScannerOpenHook work for you? >>> >>> I will retry to run it again on 3 different computers to see. >>> >>> JM >>> >>> 2013/7/1 lars hofhansl <[email protected]>: >>>> Hah. I let Cody answer here. I didn't like the empty table either, but he >>>> preferred it. >>>> >>>> -- Lars >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ________________________________ >>>> From: Jean-Daniel Cryans <[email protected]> >>>> To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>; lars hofhansl >>>> <[email protected]> >>>> Sent: Monday, July 1, 2013 10:35 AM >>>> Subject: Re: [ANNOUNCE] The 1st hbase 0.94.9 release candidate is >>>> available for download >>>> >>>> >>>> I ran some PE single node tests on both tars, looked at the web UIs >>>> and logs. I'm +1 on this RC. >>>> >>>> My only nit is the way that HBASE-5083 leaves an empty table if there >>>> are not backup masters is kinda ugly. >>>> >>>> J-D >>>> >>>> On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 3:51 PM, lars hofhansl <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> The 1st 0.94.9 RC is available for download at >>>>> http://people.apache.org/~larsh/hbase-0.94.9-rc0/ >>>>> Signed with my code signing key: C7CFE328 >>>>> >>>>> Like the previous point releases, 0.94.9 is a primarily a bug fix >>>>> release. This RC is comparatively small with 26 issues resolved against >>>>> it: >>>>> [HBASE-8453] - TestImportExport failing again due to configuration >>>>> issues >>>>> [HBASE-8494] - TestRemoteAdmin#testClusterStatus should not assume >>>>> 'requests' does not change >>>>> [HBASE-8522] - Archived hfiles and old hlogs may be deleted >>>>> immediately by HFileCleaner, LogCleaner in HMaster >>>>> [HBASE-8555] - FilterList correctness may be affected by random >>>>> ordering of sub-filter(list) >>>>> [HBASE-8590] - [0.94] BlockingMetaScannerVisitor should check for >>>>> parent meta entry while waiting for split daughter >>>>> [HBASE-8639] - Poor performance of htable#getscanner in multithreaded >>>>> environment due to DNS.getDefaultHost() being called in >>>>> ScannerCallable#prepare() >>>>> [HBASE-8640] - ServerName in master may not initialize with the >>>>> configured ipc address of hbase.master.ipc.address >>>>> [HBASE-8655] - Backport to 94 - HBASE-8346(Prefetching .META. rows in >>>>> case only when useCache is set to true) >>>>> [HBASE-8656] - Rpc call may not be notified in SecureClient >>>>> [HBASE-8671] - Per-region WAL breaks CP backwards compatibility in >>>>> 0.94 for non-enabled case >>>>> [HBASE-8684] - Table Coprocessor can't access external HTable by >>>>> default >>>>> [HBASE-8700] - IntegrationTestBigLinkedList can fail due to random >>>>> number collision >>>>> [HBASE-8724] - [0.94] ExportSnapshot should not use hbase.tmp.dir as >>>>> a staging dir on hdfs >>>>> [HBASE-8742] - HTableDescriptor Properties not preserved when cloning >>>>> [HBASE-8743] - upgrade hadoop-23 version to 0.23.7 >>>>> [HBASE-8749] - Potential race condition between >>>>> FSUtils.renameAndSetModifyTime() and HFile/LogCleaner >>>>> [HBASE-8762] - Performance/operational penalty when calling >>>>> HTable.get with a list of one Get >>>>> [HBASE-8783] - RSSnapshotManager.ZKProcedureMemberRpcs may be >>>>> initialized with the wrong server name >>>>> [HBASE-5083] - Backup HMaster should have http infoport open with >>>>> link to the active master >>>>> [HBASE-8609] - Make the CopyTable support startRow, stopRow options >>>>> [HBASE-8636] - Backport KeyValue Codec to 0.94 (HBASE-7413) >>>>> [HBASE-8683] - Add major compaction support in CompactionTool >>>>> [HBASE-8692] - [AccessController] Restrict HTableDescriptor >>>>> enumeration >>>>> [HBASE-8702] - Make WALEditCodec pluggable >>>>> [HBASE-8504] - HTable.getRegionsInRange() should provide a non-cached >>>>> API >>>>> [HBASE-8603] - Backport HBASE-6921 to 0.94 >>>>> >>>>> The full list of changes is also available here: >>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=12310753&version=12324431 >>>>> >>>>> Please try out the RC, check out the doc, take it for a spin, etc, and >>>>> vote +1/-1 by July 2nd on whether we should release this as 0.94.9. >>>>> >>>>> The release testing spreadsheet is available here: >>>>> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AvLqcVIqNtlTdGFHaktDR0FqLWdtQWZwdncyVzE3Z2c#gid=0 >>>>> (if you test this release, please add your test to this spreadsheet, so >>>>> that we can gauge the coverage) >>>>> >>>>> Thanks. >>>>> >>>>> -- Lars >>>>> >>>>> ps. I will likely be without access to the Internet for the next five days >>
