We need at least one more vote for this. I had set a shorter (4 days) testing window since this is a non-production release. I can extend the voting period if anybody needs it.
Enis On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 3:48 PM, Ted Yu <[email protected]> wrote: > +1 > > Checked the book > Checked dir layout in bin and src artifacts > Ran unit test suite - passed. > > Will do some more validation, time permitting. > > On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 2:35 PM, Enis Söztutar <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Setting aside the Interface discussions, here is my +1 for the RC. > > > > +1 > > > > Downloaded artifacts, > > Checked sigs, > > Checked crcs, > > Checked the book > > Checked dir layout in bin and src artifacts > > Checked jars of hbase and hadoop in bin artifact > > Checked version strings > > Run in local mode > > Run basic smoke tests in shell > > Run LTT > > Build the src artifact with hadoop versions 2.2.0,2.3.0,2.4.0, 2.5.0. > > 2.6.0. Compilation with 2.4.0 and before is broken, but it is ok for > > this RC. See HBASE-12637 > > Checked maven repository artifacts by running the hbase-downstreamer > > project test. > > > > > > Reminder, Sat is the last day to vote on this RC. Please plan to spend > some > > time on the RC so that we can iron out issues for the next 1.0.0RC. > > > > Enis > > > > On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 10:38 AM, Andrew Purtell <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > See https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PHOENIX-1501. Pardon the > noise > > > on > > > a VOTE thread. > > > > > > On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 10:31 AM, Andrew Purtell <[email protected]> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > Phoenix PMC here, although I'm only speaking my own opinion. Concur, > > the > > > > code takes liberties... We need to clean our own house. > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 3, 2014 at 10:59 AM, Stack <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > >> On Wed, Dec 3, 2014 at 8:07 AM, Sean Busbey <[email protected]> > > > wrote: > > > >> > > > >> > On Wed, Dec 3, 2014 at 9:44 AM, Ted Yu <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > >> > > > > >> > > Compiling Phoenix master against 0.99.2, I got: > > > >> > > http://pastebin.com/gaxCs8fT > > > >> > > > > > >> > > Some removed methods are in HBase classes that are marked > > > >> > > with @InterfaceAudience.Private > > > >> > > I want to get some opinion on whether such methods should be > > > >> deprecated > > > >> > > first. > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> There is no room for 'opinion' in this area. A bunch of work has > been > > > done > > > >> to remove ambiguity around our guarantees. The law as it stands is: > > > >> InterfaceAudience.Private means: "APIs for HBase internals > developers. > > > No > > > >> guarantees on compatibility or availability in future versions. ..." > > > (From > > > >> http://hbase.apache.org/book.html#code.standards). We can add > > verbiage > > > >> but > > > >> you would have to have a perverse squint to interpret this "no > > > guarantees" > > > >> as "no guarantees -- after a deprecation cycle". > > > >> > > > >> That said, we are an accommodating lot. I suggest you take the list > > > over > > > >> to phoenix dev and that phoenix comes back with explicit asks rather > > > than > > > >> this blanket list taken from a compile against their master branch. > > > >> > > > >> As per Sean, this discussion does not belong on a dev release RC > vote > > > >> thread, nor should it hold up its release. > > > >> St.Ack > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > Best regards, > > > > > > > > - Andy > > > > > > > > Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet > > Hein > > > > (via Tom White) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > Best regards, > > > > > > - Andy > > > > > > Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet > Hein > > > (via Tom White) > > > > > >
