With 3 binding +1s, 1 -0, and 1 non-binding +1s, the vote passed.
Let me push out 2.1.10.
Thanks all for voting!
张铎(Duo Zhang) 于2020年4月8日周三 上午9:02写道：
> Here is my +1.
>
> 张铎(Duo Zhang) 于2020年4月8日周三 上午8:59写道：
>
>> Got it. Thanks for helping analyzing it.
>>
>> Yu Li 于2020年4月7日周二 下午10:16写道：
Here is my +1.
张铎(Duo Zhang) 于2020年4月8日周三 上午8:59写道：
> Got it. Thanks for helping analyzing it.
>
> Yu Li 于2020年4月7日周二 下午10:16写道：
>
>> Sorry for the late response due to vacation.
>>
>> I could reproduce the failure by running `mvn
>> -Dtest=TestHFileCleaner#testHFileCleaning clean test`, and
Got it. Thanks for helping analyzing it.
Yu Li 于2020年4月7日周二 下午10:16写道：
> Sorry for the late response due to vacation.
>
> I could reproduce the failure by running `mvn
> -Dtest=TestHFileCleaner#testHFileCleaning clean test`, and from the log I
> found the root cause, simply because my username
Sorry for the late response due to vacation.
I could reproduce the failure by running `mvn
-Dtest=TestHFileCleaner#testHFileCleaning clean test`, and from the log I
found the root cause, simply because my username on the test machine
includes a dot, and the error message is like:
Hi, Yu Li, I can not see these failures. Could you please confirm them
again? What is the detailed failure message?
Thanks.
Yu Li 于2020年4月3日周五 上午10:24写道：
> -1 (binding)
>
> Checked sums and signatures: ok
> Built from source: ok (8u101)
> RAT check: ok (8u101)
> Unit tests: failed (8u101)
> -
The TestCanaryTool is a mess, the output is flooded with "Failed to renew
lease" but I could get a successful run, finally.
This is my jdk version
openjdk version "1.8.0_222"
OpenJDK Runtime Environment (AdoptOpenJDK)(build 1.8.0_222-b10)
OpenJDK 64-Bit Server VM (AdoptOpenJDK)(build
Thanks. Since you can’t reproduce I’ll change my vote to -0.
Weird you don’t see the TestCanaryTool failure. Perhaps that is because of
differing JDK versions.
> On Apr 2, 2020, at 8:27 PM, 张铎(Duo Zhang) wrote:
>
> I can not reproduce these failure locally.
>
> And for
I can not reproduce these failure locally.
And for testScanAfterDeletingSpecifiedRowV2, maybe the problem is the
timestamp. If your computer is fast enough, the later several puts may have
the same timestamp with the delete at the beginning, so the later put will
be masked by the previous delete,
Looking at the flaky list here:
https://builds.apache.org/job/HBASE-Find-Flaky-Tests/job/branch-2.1/lastSuccessfulBuild/artifact/dashboard.html
The TestQuotasShell was a problem and has been fixed already.
I could get a successful UT run locally.
With -PrunAllTests several tests in
-1 (binding)
Checked sums and signatures: ok
Built from source: ok (8u101)
RAT check: ok (8u101)
Unit tests: failed (8u101)
- TestHFileCleaner.testHFileCleaning failed stably and could be reproduced
by single run
- 6 Errors caused by test timed out of this invocation
path:
-1 (binding)
* Signature: ok
* Checksum : ok
* Rat check (1.8.0_232): ok
- mvn clean apache-rat:check
* Built from source (1.8.0_232): ok
- mvn clean install -DskipTests
* Unit tests pass (1.8.0_232): failed
- mvn package -P runAllTests
+1 (non-binding)
* Signature: ok
* Checksum : ok
* Rat check (1.8.0_172): ok
- mvn clean apache-rat:check
* Built from source (1.8.0_172): ok
- mvn clean install -DskipTests
* Unit tests pass (1.8.0_172): ok
- mvn package -P
+1
- signatures, checksums: OK
- rat check: OK
- built from source (8u242): OK
- unit tests (8u242): OK
- ltt with 1M rows: OK
- web UI: OK
- shell and basic commands: OK
Best regards,
Balazs
On Wed, Apr 1, 2020 at 6:15 AM Duo Zhang wrote:
> Please vote on this Apache hbase release candidate,
Please vote on this Apache hbase release candidate,
hbase-2.1.10RC1
The VOTE will remain open for at least 72 hours.
[ ] +1 Release this package as Apache hbase 2.1.10
[ ] -1 Do not release this package because ...
The tag to be voted on is 2.1.10RC1:
14 matches
Mail list logo
