For #2.1, I logged HBASE-10460 and attached a patch there. Thanks, Alex.
On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 2:22 PM, Aleksandr Shulman <al...@cloudera.com>wrote: > Sorry to join the party a little late. I have two pieces of feedback for > the RC. Because of 2.1 and 2.2, I am also -1 on this RC. > > 1. Smoke tests - I ran the standard internal smoke tests - they all passed. > 2. Binary/API incompatibilities: > 1. Scan.setSmall(boolean) return type changed, which will cause a binary > incompatibility between 0.96 and 0.98 > 2. HTableDescriptor.isDeferredLogFlush was removed, which will cause a > binary incompatibility between 0.96 and 0.98. We should add it back with > default response of 'true' > 3. KeyValue constructors removed (known issue, but we should make sure to > document) > 4. ServerName constructors removed (known issue, but we should make sure > to document) > > For 2.1 and 2.2: > > > Exception from testScanMeta: -> java.lang.NoSuchMethodError: > org.apache.hadoop.hbase.client.Scan.setSmall(Z)V > > > Exception from testIsDeferredLogFlush: -> > java.lang.NoSuchMethodError: > org.apache.hadoop.hbase.HTableDescriptor.isDeferredLogFlush()Z > > > The full report of Public API diffs can be found here: > > http://people.apache.org/~jmhsieh/hbase_jdiff_report-p-0.96-c-0.98/changes.html > I will continue examining the report and I'd encourage folks to do the > same. > > > > On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 9:59 AM, Andrew Purtell <apurt...@apache.org> > wrote: > > > On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 7:04 PM, tsuna <tsuna...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > Sorry I didn't mean to sink the RC just for this. > > > > > > Well I think we should not be obnoxious in that way even if unintended. > > However, HBASE-10433 would also have sunk the RC if it makes you feel > > better. :-) > > > > > > > > -- > > Best regards, > > > > - Andy > > > > Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet Hein > > (via Tom White) > > > > > > -- > Best Regards, > > Aleks Shulman > 847.814.5804 > Cloudera >
