+1. all unit tests passed for me.
On Oct 26, 2010, at 10:59 AM, Ashish Thusoo wrote:
> +1 from me as well. Ran the tests and aside from those that I mentioned
> everything passed cleanly.
>
> Ashish
> ________________________________________
> From: Edward Capriolo [edlinuxg...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Monday, October 25, 2010 7:14 PM
> To: dev@hive.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [VOTE] hive 0.6.0 release candidate 0
>
> On Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at 10:00 PM, John Sichi <jsi...@facebook.com> wrote:
>> At the Hive contributor meeting, we discussed this and came to the
>> conclusion that the failures reported so far are ignorable based on the
>> Hudson history (and in this case Ning's observation of JVM inconsistencies
>> with respect to serialization format).
>>
>> We need one more +1 from a committer before we can release.
>>
>> JVS
>>
>> On Oct 25, 2010, at 12:54 PM, Ashish Thusoo wrote:
>>
>>> I got the following test failures on the release candidate...
>>>
>>> groupby2.q
>>> groupby3.q
>>> groupby4.q
>>> groupby5.q
>>> groupby6.q
>>>
>>> not sure if this is just in my env or if others have seen this...
>>>
>>> A sample of the diff is below and seems to be related to some plan ordering
>>> or some change in plan. Is anyone else getting this?
>>>
>>> Ashish
>>>
>>> -------------------------
>>> [junit] diff -b -I'\(\(<java version=".*"
>>> class="java.beans.XMLDecoder">\)\|\(<string>.*/tmp/.*</string>\)\|\(<string>file:.*</string>\)\|\(<string>[0-9]\{10\}</string>\)\|\(<string>/.*/warehouse/.*</string>\)\)'
>>>
>>> /data/users/athusoo/tmp/hive-0.6.0/src/build/ql/test/logs/positive/groupby6.q.xml
>>>
>>> /data/users/athusoo/tmp/hive-0.6.0/src/ql/src/test/results/compiler/plan/groupby6.q.xml
>>> [junit] 352,353c352
>>> [junit] < <object class="java.lang.Enum"
>>> method="valueOf">
>>> [junit] <
>>> <class>org.apache.hadoop.hive.ql.plan.GroupByDesc$Mode</class>
>>> [junit] ---
>>> [junit] > <object
>>> class="org.apache.hadoop.hive.ql.plan.GroupByDesc$Mode" method="valueOf">
>>> [junit] 878,879c877
>>> [junit] < <object class="java.lang.Enum" method="valueOf">
>>> [junit] <
>>> <class>org.apache.hadoop.hive.ql.plan.GroupByDesc$Mode</class>
>>> [junit] ---
>>> [junit] > <object
>>> class="org.apache.hadoop.hive.ql.plan.GroupByDesc$Mode" method="valueOf">
>>>
>>> --------------------------
>>>
>>> ________________________________________
>>> From: John Sichi [jsi...@facebook.com]
>>> Sent: Thursday, October 21, 2010 12:22 PM
>>> To: <dev@hive.apache.org>
>>> Subject: Re: [VOTE] hive 0.6.0 release candidate 0
>>>
>>> Yeah, the scripts should only be needed in configurations where JDO is told
>>> not to automatically update the schema. This is recommended for production
>>> environments.
>>>
>>> For this particular release, taking a downtime while running the scripts is
>>> a good idea due to the nature of the changes (e.g. altering the primary key
>>> on COLS). That needn't be true in general for additive-only changes.
>>>
>>> JVS
>>>
>>> On Oct 21, 2010, at 12:14 PM, Edward Capriolo wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 6:38 PM, John Sichi <jsi...@facebook.com> wrote:
>>>>> The tarballs are at
>>>>>
>>>>> http://people.apache.org/~jvs/hive-0.6.0-candidate-0
>>>>>
>>>>> Carl did some sanity testing on it already, but any additional testing
>>>>> you can do before voting helps to ensure a quality release.
>>>>>
>>>>> JVS
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I am checking it out now. It seems like since i have used two trunk
>>>> versions since hive the view related tables have already been created.
>>>> I do not need the update script.
>>>
>>
>>
>
> I checked out. Created views, ran some queries on against them, tested
> the new local mode, web interface looks good. +1 Great work everyone.
