Re: [VOTE] Accumulo 1.6.0-RC2

In the interest of documentation, this vote failed with: -6, +2 -- Christopher L Tubbs II http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii On Fri, Apr 18, 2014 at 11:13 PM, Bill Havanki wrote: > And for proper form: -1 due to ACCUMULO-2700. > > > On Fri, Apr 18, 2014 at 11:12 PM, Bill Havanki > wrote: > >> -1 >>

Re: [VOTE] Accumulo 1.6.0-RC2

And for proper form: -1 due to ACCUMULO-2700. On Fri, Apr 18, 2014 at 11:12 PM, Bill Havanki wrote: > -1 > > Dogpile! > > > On Fri, Apr 18, 2014 at 5:08 PM, Keith Turner wrote: > >> -1 because of ACCUMULO-2700 >> >> I was getting ready to +1 before Christopher found 2700 >> >> I did the followi

Re: [VOTE] Accumulo 1.6.0-RC2

-1 Dogpile! On Fri, Apr 18, 2014 at 5:08 PM, Keith Turner wrote: > -1 because of ACCUMULO-2700 > > I was getting ready to +1 before Christopher found 2700 > > I did the following checks > * sigs @ hashes of bin.tgz are ok > * ran through a few examples and found ACCUMULO-2691 > * upgrade 1.

Re: [VOTE] Accumulo 1.6.0-RC2

-1 because of ACCUMULO-2700 I was getting ready to +1 before Christopher found 2700 I did the following checks * sigs @ hashes of bin.tgz are ok * ran through a few examples and found ACCUMULO-2691 * upgrade 1.5.1 to 1.6.0 RC2 went ok * built native lib ok Ran the following test on 20 node c

Re: [VOTE] Accumulo 1.6.0-RC2

-1 Due to https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ACCUMULO-2700 -- Christopher L Tubbs II http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 9:57 PM, Christopher wrote: > Accumulo Developers, > > Please consider the following candidate for Accumulo 1.6.0. > > Git Commit: e7863ea0dd523f0c6d3552

Re: [VOTE] Accumulo 1.6.0-RC2

-1 due to ACCUMULO-2700 https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ACCUMULO-2700 On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 10:25 PM, Josh Elser wrote: > Just ingested 500M entries with CI and verified them successfully too. > > > On 4/17/14, 6:59 PM, Josh Elser wrote: > >> +1 >> >> * Built and tested (unit and integ

Re: [VOTE] Accumulo 1.6.0-RC2

-1 due to ACCUMULO-2700 On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 11:25 PM, Josh Elser wrote: > Just ingested 500M entries with CI and verified them successfully too. > > > On 4/17/14, 6:59 PM, Josh Elser wrote: > >> +1 >> >> * Built and tested (unit and integration) src tarball against Apache >> Hadoop 2.2.0, 2

Re: [VOTE] Accumulo 1.6.0-RC2

Just ingested 500M entries with CI and verified them successfully too. On 4/17/14, 6:59 PM, Josh Elser wrote: +1 * Built and tested (unit and integration) src tarball against Apache Hadoop 2.2.0, 2.3.0 and 2.4.0. * Verified src and bin tarballs hash/sigs * Verified performance fix in place afte

Re: [VOTE] Accumulo 1.6.0-RC2

+1 * Built and tested (unit and integration) src tarball against Apache Hadoop 2.2.0, 2.3.0 and 2.4.0. * Verified src and bin tarballs hash/sigs * Verified performance fix in place after RC1 (ACCUMULO-2668) * Ran Pig jobs * Checked over user manual On 4/15/14, 9:57 PM, Christopher wrote: Accu

Re: [VOTE] Accumulo 1.6.0-RC2

+1 Ran 24-hour randomwalk test without agitation. Results documented in ACCUMULO-2655. On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 9:57 PM, Christopher wrote: > Accumulo Developers, > > Please consider the following candidate for Accumulo 1.6.0. > > Git Commit: e7863ea0dd523f0c6d3552e6844ff7411d78d557 > Branch:

Re: [VOTE] Accumulo 1.6.0-RC2

On Wed, Apr 16, 2014 at 12:39 PM, Billie Rinaldi wrote: > On Wed, Apr 16, 2014 at 9:32 AM, Christopher wrote: > > > The removal of .gitignore is something that is done upstream, by the > > Apache source release assembly and related plugins. > > > > I think it's an acceptable and expected change f

Re: [VOTE] Accumulo 1.6.0-RC2

On Wed, Apr 16, 2014 at 9:32 AM, Christopher wrote: > The removal of .gitignore is something that is done upstream, by the > Apache source release assembly and related plugins. > > I think it's an acceptable and expected change from the behavior of > previous behavior, as the .gitignore file has

Re: [VOTE] Accumulo 1.6.0-RC2

The removal of .gitignore is something that is done upstream, by the Apache source release assembly and related plugins. I think it's an acceptable and expected change from the behavior of previous behavior, as the .gitignore file has no meaning in the source tarball, and is only useful inside the

Re: [VOTE] Accumulo 1.6.0-RC2

-1 Verified all signatures and checksums. Source tar differs from commit - missing the ".gitignore" file CHANGES file includes ACCUMULO-2667which has a fix version of 1.6.0 Unit tests pass. Was able to deploy binary tar to a cluster and star

[VOTE] Accumulo 1.6.0-RC2

Accumulo Developers, Please consider the following candidate for Accumulo 1.6.0. Git Commit: e7863ea0dd523f0c6d3552e6844ff7411d78d557 Branch: 1.6.0-RC2 Staging repo: https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheaccumulo-1008 Source: https://repository.apache.org/content/reposito