apshots to 0.94?
> >
> > -- Lars
> >
> >
> >
> > ________
> > From: Stack >
> > To: HBase Dev List >; lars hofhansl
> >
> > Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2013 9:19 PM
> > Subject: Re: Upcoming merge of sn
il
> 0.96 is stable? Why backport snapshots to 0.94?
>
> -- Lars
>
>
>
>
> From: Stack
> To: HBase Dev List ; lars hofhansl
> Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2013 9:19 PM
> Subject: Re: Upcoming merge of snapshots branch into trunk
; lars hofhansl
Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2013 9:19 PM
Subject: Re: Upcoming merge of snapshots branch into trunk. (HBASE-6055 and
HABSE-7290)
On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 7:34 PM, lars hofhansl wrote:
Eventually we should switch to semantic versioning (like Hadoop).
>
>
The -beta stuff
On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 7:34 PM, lars hofhansl wrote:
> Eventually we should switch to semantic versioning (like Hadoop).
>
>
The -beta stuff? Nah, at least in Hadoop, it has been arbitrarily applied
(and contended). Lets not use Hadoop as an example. We have some
precedent for linux-y odd is
Here's the backport jira:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-7360
On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 8:05 PM, Jonathan Hsieh wrote:
> Lars H is the release manager for 0.94 and it is his call for what he
> will allow or disallow into it. If Lars is cool with enis's 'a'
> option, I'm fine with it.
Lars H is the release manager for 0.94 and it is his call for what he
will allow or disallow into it. If Lars is cool with enis's 'a'
option, I'm fine with it.
I do feel that having to maintain code across 2-4 versions (trunk,
0.96, 0.95, 0.94) is more significantly more painful than dealing with
or not do it all and leave it 0.96+
only.
-- Lars
From: Enis Söztutar
To: "dev@hbase.apache.org"
Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2013 3:20 PM
Subject: Re: Upcoming merge of snapshots branch into trunk. (HBASE-6055 and
HABSE-7290)
Hi,
> It t
Over in the thread '[DISCUSSION] Sorting out issues for 0.96 for (eventual)
release', proposal of branching 0.96 and cutting a 0.95 release is gaining
some support.
That makes option b a little trickier.
Cheers
On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 3:20 PM, Enis Söztutar wrote:
> Hi,
> > It turns out that bo
Hi,
> It turns out that both Cloudera and Hortonworks have plans to backport
this to 0.94 in their respective distributions (I don't think that is a
secret, apologies if it was).
It seems true :). From my HWX hat, I can say that we are interested in
backporting snapshots into 0.94, and my apache ha
can wait for both HW and Cloudera to finish the backport and
> stabilize and test it and then port it to the "official" Apache
> distribution.
> >
> >
> > Thoughts?
> >
> >
> > -- Lars
> >
> >
> >
> > ________
Just throwing it out there... If you're still including patch sets in
nightlies then one of us could port in the snapshots backport from CDH to
ASF.
On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 12:49 PM, Jonathan Hsieh wrote:
> As I mentioned on the jira, I can go either way +/-0 -- currently
> there is only rpc-rel
ort it to the "official" Apache distribution.
>
>
> Thoughts?
>
>
> -- Lars
>
>
>
>
> From: Jonathan Hsieh
> To: dev@hbase.apache.org
> Sent: Wednesday, January 9, 2013 11:38 AM
> Subject: Re: Upcoming merge of snapshots bra
I'd certainly expect this to appear in those distros, in any case.
+1
On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 10:46 AM, lars hofhansl wrote:
> This makes it a defacto standard, and would probably point towards porting
> this to the public 0.94 as well.
--
Best regards,
- Andy
Problems worthy of attac
AM
Subject: Re: Upcoming merge of snapshots branch into trunk. (HBASE-6055 and
HABSE-7290)
On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 at 11:44 PM, Stack wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 at 10:07 AM, Jonathan Hsieh wrote:
>> Aside from asking for reviews, there are a few outstanding questions we'd
>> lov
On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 at 11:44 PM, Stack wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 at 10:07 AM, Jonathan Hsieh wrote:
>> Aside from asking for reviews, there are a few outstanding questions we'd
>> love to get your feedback on:
>> HBASE-7471 - default configuration so that snapshots are available by
>> default?
On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 at 10:07 AM, Jonathan Hsieh wrote:
> Matteo, Jesse and I seem to be getting to the point where have core
> functionality for offline snapshots (disable table, snapshot) and online
> snapshot (snapshot an enabled table) committed, did another rev solidifying
> file layout, and
On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 at 10:38 AM, Ted Yu wrote:
> Jon:
> Merging option #3 looks attractive. Do you have estimate for how long trunk
> should be frozen to other commits if we choose this approach ?
>
> The good news is that I don't think we actually need to freeze trunk. S4
in the picture for #3
Jon:
Merging option #3 looks attractive. Do you have estimate for how long trunk
should be frozen to other commits if we choose this approach ?
Is snapshot-work-0103 the latest branch for HBASE-7290 repo ?
I ran Test*Snapshot* tests from this branch and found one failed test:
testValidateGlobalS
Hey Folks,
Matteo, Jesse and I seem to be getting to the point where have core
functionality for offline snapshots (disable table, snapshot) and online
snapshot (snapshot an enabled table) committed, did another rev solidifying
file layout, and have been steadily knocking off blocking and non-bloc
19 matches
Mail list logo
