+1 Checked signatures Unpacked tarballs, layout looks good Built from source RAT check passed Checked docs. Minor issue with logo asset not loading, not critical. Started single node cluster and ran LTT of 1M keys, no unusual or unexpected warnings or errors, reported latencies were stable after warmup
On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 12:10 PM, Enis Söztutar <e...@apache.org> wrote: > UT run for this RC is at > https://builds.apache.org/view/All/job/HBase-1.0.1RC2/4/. Previous runs > had > some flaky failures. > > Kind reminder that the RC vote has been extended until tonight since we did > not get enough votes. Please spend some time for the RC if you can. > > Thanks. > Enis > > On Sun, Apr 26, 2015 at 9:46 PM, Enis Söztutar <e...@apache.org> wrote: > > > Here is my +1 for the RC. > > > > Checked sigs, crcs, > > Checked layout, jars > > Checked the book > > Run local mode > > Run on a 5 node cluster > > Run smoke test, simple shell commands > > Run LTT with 1M and different encodings / compression > > Run ITBLL, wrote 100M nodes > > Test with 1.0.0 and 0.98.12 clients > > > > Thanks Ted and Josh for testing the RC. We need one more +1. Anybody else > > wants to test? I'll extend the vote until tomorrow midnight PDT. > > > > Enis > > > > > > On Sat, Apr 25, 2015 at 9:16 AM, Andrew Purtell <apurt...@apache.org> > > wrote: > > > >> +1 for resuming the vote. > >> > >> On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 9:47 PM, Enis Söztutar <e...@apache.org> wrote: > >> > >> > Yes, consider voting resumed. > >> > Andrew, is +1 for the RC or for resuming voting? > >> > > >> > Let me extend the VOTE until Sunday 11:59PM PDT for lost time. > >> > > >> > Enis > >> > > >> > On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 1:55 PM, Andrew Purtell <apurt...@apache.org> > >> > wrote: > >> > > >> > > +1 > >> > > > >> > > On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 1:35 PM, Stack <st...@duboce.net> wrote: > >> > > > >> > > > Can this VOTE thread come back to life now? > >> > > > St.Ack > >> > > > > >> > > > On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 11:15 AM, Enis Söztutar < > enis....@gmail.com > >> > > >> > > > wrote: > >> > > > > >> > > > > On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 10:19 AM, Andrew Purtell < > >> > apurt...@apache.org> > >> > > > > wrote: > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > Let's postpone this vote. > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > Agreed. > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > See the threads on dev@ titled "Clarifying interface > evolution > >> > > > freedom > >> > > > > in > >> > > > > > patch releases" and "The Renumbering (proposed)". > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 4:31 PM, Sean Busbey < > >> bus...@cloudera.com> > >> > > > > wrote: > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > On Apr 22, 2015 4:40 PM, "Enis Söztutar" < > enis....@gmail.com> > >> > > wrote: > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > I think the agreement is to continue with the RC. > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > One note... in the japi report, I was a little surprised > >> > when I > >> > > > > > noticed > >> > > > > > > > method additions to InterfaceAudience.Public annotated > >> classes. > >> > > > This > >> > > > > > > means > >> > > > > > > > that a user could write code against 1.0.1 that would not > >> work > >> > > > > against > >> > > > > > > > 1.0.0 which seems undesirable for a bugfix release. I read > >> over > >> > > the > >> > > > > > book > >> > > > > > > > section on compatibility and didn't see this addressed, > so I > >> > > > thought > >> > > > > > I'd > >> > > > > > > > ask. > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > I think this is allowed. Did not check it though. > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > Enis > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > It's not allowed normally under semver. There's already > >> another > >> > > > thread > >> > > > > > > going on this though. > >> > > > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > -- Best regards, - Andy Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet Hein (via Tom White)
