Re: [VOTE] - Release 2.0.5-beta

On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 10:52PM, Suresh Srinivas wrote: > > Assuming that you are talking about HDFS features when you say > > > > "features going into a beta on a very short short timetable" and > > > "laundry list" etc, > > > > > > > No, that would not be a correct assumption. > > > > So these f

Re: [VOTE] - Release 2.0.5-beta

On May 15, 2013, at 2:54 PM, Roman Shaposhnik wrote: > This is not my argument at all. I apologize if somehow I failed to > communicate it, but here's what my argument boils down to: > given *my* experience with Hadoop 2.0.x series and Bigtop > release every time I try a different release of Hado

Re: [VOTE] - Release 2.0.5-beta

Guys, I guess what you're missing is that Bigtop isn't a testing framework for Hadoop. It is stack framework that verifies that components are dealing with each other nicely. Every single stack is different: Bigtop 0.5.0 differs from 0.6.0, and so on. Bigtop - as any other ASF project - has its re

Re: Bugfix release 2.0.4.1

It's a little dirty, but Mark and Jarek (presumably from BigTop) ran a patched version with my change at MAPREDUCE-5240. If someone can run the BigTop tests with that change (for e.g using locally built artifacts), that can help us fix any other blockers beyond MAPREDUCE-5240 in any downstream

Re: [VOTE] - Release 2.0.5-beta

> Assuming that you are talking about HDFS features when you say > > "features going into a beta on a very short short timetable" and > > "laundry list" etc, > > > > No, that would not be a correct assumption. > > So these features are not something that are impulsively developed > > and irrespons

Re: [VOTE] - Release 2.0.5-beta

Also: On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 1:05 PM, Suresh Srinivas wrote: > Assuming that you are talking about HDFS features when you say > "features going into a beta on a very short short timetable" and > "laundry list" etc, > No, that would not be a correct assumption. So these features are not somethi

Re: [VOTE] - Release 2.0.5-beta

> Needless to say stability is not just a concern of downstream projects. We > spend long hours, day in day out, trying to ensure features are stable as > core contributors. I'm sure this is the case but the basic integration blockers that Roman has pointed out on this thread indicates that integr

Re: [VOTE] - Release 2.0.5-beta

Hi Arun, Can we also include HDFS-3875 for this release. 2013/5/15 Arun C Murthy > Folks, > > A considerable number of people have expressed confusion regarding the > recent vote on 2.0.5, beta status etc. given lack of specifics, the voting > itself (validity of the vote itself, whose votes a

Re: [VOTE] - Release 2.0.5-beta

On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 9:25 PM, Andrew Purtell wrote: > The other thread or "vote" or whatever at least served the purpose in fresh > surfacing of concerns. Talk of new features going in to a "beta" on a very > short short timetable is concerning for anyone with experience working on > large sof

Re: [VOTE] - Release 2.0.5-beta

The other thread or "vote" or whatever at least served the purpose in fresh surfacing of concerns. Talk of new features going in to a "beta" on a very short short timetable is concerning for anyone with experience working on large software projects. It's not a little ironic that this vote thread, d

Re: [VOTE] - Release 2.0.5-beta

I'm actually drafting such a proposal. Will open the discussion as a [PROPOSAL] in general@ --Matt On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 4:44 PM, Arun C Murthy wrote: > > On May 15, 2013, at 3:27 PM, Chris Douglas wrote: > > > +1 (binding) on the proposal. > > > > However, the value we get from these "relea

Re: [VOTE] - Release 2.0.5-beta

Roman, what is your model for how test results from Bigtop should feed back into Hadoop-2 development? With the understanding that (a) software does have bugs, and (b) you're not going to get an SLA on community-sponsored software, what are your ideas for how to close the loop better? Would "CI" r

Re: [VOTE] - Release 2.0.5-beta

On May 15, 2013, at 3:50 PM, Roman Shaposhnik wrote: > Arun, > > am I reading yours answer to my binary question correctly? It is a 'no'. No. > > My reading of your response is that while you appreciate the feedback > Bigtop is providing you're not of an opinion that investigating the level >

Re: [VOTE] - Release 2.0.5-beta

On May 15, 2013, at 3:27 PM, Chris Douglas wrote: > +1 (binding) on the proposal. > > However, the value we get from these "release plan" votes is dubious, > to put it mildly. The surrounding discussion has cost more than it is > worth, and votes on executive summaries of releases discourage the

Re: [VOTE] - Release 2.0.5-beta

Indeed. I think the root of the issue is deeper. ASF software practices are great to deal with isolated, relatively contained projects like httpd, libreoffice, trac, etc. However, Hadoop based stack - essentially, software aimed at enterprises with bigger scale operations - is a different animal, t

[jira] [Created] (HADOOP-9565) Add a Blobstore interface to add to blobstore FileSystems

Steve Loughran created HADOOP-9565: -- Summary: Add a Blobstore interface to add to blobstore FileSystems Key: HADOOP-9565 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HADOOP-9565 Project: Hadoop Common

Re: [VOTE] - Release 2.0.5-beta

Arun, am I reading yours answer to my binary question correctly? It is a 'no'. My reading of your response is that while you appreciate the feedback Bigtop is providing you're not of an opinion that investigating the level of stability of Hadoop wrt. downstream any further than what is currently

Re: [VOTE] - Release 2.0.5-beta

Arun, I am glad I at least convinced you to finally announce your release plan and put it into vote. Even though it is to overrule the vote that just completed, which you were against and lost, well - Twice. I am glad you removed the NFS feature from the list proposed earlier. I think this vote

Re: [VOTE] - Release 2.0.5-beta

On 15 May 2013 15:02, Arun C Murthy wrote: > Roman, > > Furthermore, before we rush into finding flaws and scaring kids at night > it would be useful to remember one thing: > Software has *bugs*. We can't block any release till the entire universe > validates it, in fact they won't validate it if

Re: [VOTE] - Release 2.0.5-beta

+1 (binding) on the proposal. However, the value we get from these "release plan" votes is dubious, to put it mildly. The surrounding discussion has cost more than it is worth, and votes on executive summaries of releases discourage the sort of detailed collaboration we're trying to create. It rep

Re: [VOTE] - Release 2.0.5-beta

Roman, Furthermore, before we rush into finding flaws and scaring kids at night it would be useful to remember one thing: Software has *bugs*. We can't block any release till the entire universe validates it, in fact they won't validate it if we don't release since are at the bottom of the stac

Re: [VOTE] - Release 2.0.5-beta

On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 2:14 PM, Vinod Kumar Vavilapalli wrote: > Please list down all the issues that BigTop ran into *because of* new > features. Whether the bug is *because of* new feature or not is a red herring for my argument. Please lets drop this distinction. I never used it. > You cont

Re: [VOTE] - Release 2.0.5-beta

On 15 May 2013 10:57, Arun C Murthy wrote: > Folks, > > A considerable number of people have expressed confusion regarding the > recent vote on 2.0.5, beta status etc. given lack of specifics, the voting > itself (validity of the vote itself, whose votes are binding) etc. > > IMHO technical argum

Re: [VOTE] - Release 2.0.5-beta

Great summary, thanks Vinod. On May 15, 2013, at 2:14 PM, Vinod Kumar Vavilapalli wrote: > > Roman, I keep this same argument again and again. Should've refuted earlier. > > Please list down all the issues that BigTop ran into *because of* new > features. You continue to argue that new feature

Re: [VOTE] - Release 2.0.5-beta

Typo, keep hearing* Thanks, +Vinod On May 15, 2013, at 2:14 PM, Vinod Kumar Vavilapalli wrote: > Roman, I keep this same argument again and again. Should've refuted earlier.

Re: [VOTE] - Release 2.0.5-beta

Roman, I keep this same argument again and again. Should've refuted earlier. Please list down all the issues that BigTop ran into *because of* new features. You continue to argue that new features are destabilizing 2.0.*, which I don't agree with at all. 2.0.3-alpha was the last time major feat

Re: [VOTE] - Release 2.0.5-beta

On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 1:36 PM, Matt Foley wrote: >>> lets fork this thread into the appropriate ML and discuss the practical, > achievable >>> steps that can be included into the release criteria of Hadoop 2.0.5-beta > > Seems to me common-dev is the appropriate ML, Thanks. I'll stick to this t

Re: [VOTE] - Release 2.0.5-beta

+1 (non-binding) on the proposal. On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 1:43 PM, Eli Collins wrote: > On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 1:29 PM, Matt Foley > wrote: > > > >> Arun, not sure whether your "Yes to all" already covered this, but I'd > > like > > >> to throw in support for the compatibility guidelines bein

Re: [VOTE] - Release 2.0.5-beta

On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 1:29 PM, Matt Foley wrote: > >> Arun, not sure whether your "Yes to all" already covered this, but I'd > like > >> to throw in support for the compatibility guidelines being a blocker. > > +1 to that. Definitely an overriding concern for me. > > +1 Likewise. Would be g

Re: [VOTE] - Release 2.0.5-beta

+1 (binding) on the proposal. 2-3 weeks doesn't sound too long a time, and we have many committers willing to be on-call to fix issues when they are discovered. On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 10:57 AM, Arun C Murthy wrote: > Folks, > > A considerable number of people have expressed confusion regarding

Re: [VOTE] - Release 2.0.5-beta

>> lets fork this thread into the appropriate ML and discuss the practical, achievable >> steps that can be included into the release criteria of Hadoop 2.0.5-beta Seems to me common-dev is the appropriate ML, and Arun has invited Jiras to include. Open a Jira with your suggested list, and we carr

Re: [VOTE] - Release 2.0.5-beta

>> Arun, not sure whether your "Yes to all" already covered this, but I'd like >> to throw in support for the compatibility guidelines being a blocker. +1 to that. Definitely an overriding concern for me. On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 1:25 PM, Sandy Ryza wrote: > +1 (non-binding) > > Agreed with Bi

Re: [VOTE] - Release 2.0.5-beta

On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 10:57 AM, Arun C Murthy wrote: > I propose we continue the original plan and make a 2.0.5-beta release by May > end with the following content: I have a very basic question: what are the steps that we, as a community, are willing to undertake to ensure that our aggressive

Re: [VOTE] - Release 2.0.5-beta

+1 (non-binding) Agreed with Bikas that we should get the scheduler API enhancements (YARN-397) in we are able, but they don't need to be blockers because they will be backwards compatible. Arun, not sure whether your "Yes to all" already covered this, but I'd like to throw in support for the com

Re: [VOTE] - Release 2.0.5-beta

+1 (binding). I think it's important to maintain the release continuity, otherwise we could end up with the 0.20.2 / 0.20.200 problem all over again (parallel "stable" dev tracks without a parent-child relationship to each other, ie with disjoint subsets of functionality). I consider achieving a

Re: [VOTE] - Release 2.0.5-beta

+1 On May 15, 2013, at 10:57 AM, Arun C Murthy wrote: > Folks, > > A considerable number of people have expressed confusion regarding the recent > vote on 2.0.5, beta status etc. given lack of specifics, the voting itself > (validity of the vote itself, whose votes are binding) etc. > > IMHO

RE: [VOTE] - Release 2.0.5-beta

I am +1 to the proposal because it maintains the original cadence a bunch of us committers/contributors have been working with. Windows related changes have been made in a conservative manner so as not to destabilize the code base. The changes are being extensively tested and validated by communit

Re: [VOTE] - Release 2.0.5-beta

+1 -- Arpit Gupta Hortonworks Inc. http://hortonworks.com/ On May 15, 2013, at 10:57 AM, Arun C Murthy wrote: > Folks, > > A considerable number of people have expressed confusion regarding the recent > vote on 2.0.5, beta status etc. given lack of specifics, the voting itself > (validity of

Re: [VOTE] - Release 2.0.5-beta

I also feel that some of YARN-397 should go in. If you also feel so, please put in a +1 to state your intention. Thanks, +Vinod On May 15, 2013, at 11:32 AM, Alejandro Abdelnur wrote: > Do we need to add YARN-397? > > Thanks. > > > On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 11:23 AM, Karthik Kambatla wrote: >

Re: [VOTE] - Release 2.0.5-beta

Yes to all. As long as we are making timely and compatible progress, we don't need to debate individual issues here. Let's continue discussion on relevant jiras. thanks, Arun On May 15, 2013, at 12:11 PM, Vinod Kumar Vavilapalli wrote: > > >> - RM restart which is mostly already committed bu

Re: [VOTE] - Release 2.0.5-beta

> - RM restart which is mostly already committed but needs a couple more in > - a couple of scheduling related APIs which fall under the protocol changes > you mentioned, that are close to commit > - a couple of security issues which aren't exactly features. I should have been clearer: - RM

Re: [VOTE] - Release 2.0.5-beta

Thanks for laying out a very specific release plan, easy to vote on. I am watching most of YARN and MAPREDUCE changes, glad that those are called out specifically. Apart from that, we have - RM restart which is mostly already committed but needs a couple more in - a couple of scheduling relat

Re: [VOTE] - Release 2.0.5-beta

Do we need to add YARN-397? Thanks. On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 11:23 AM, Karthik Kambatla wrote: > Hi Arun, > > Can we add HADOOP-9517 to the list - having compatibility guidelines should > help us support users and downstream projects better? > > Thanks > Karthik > > > On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 10:

Re: [VOTE] - Release 2.0.5-beta

Hi Arun, Can we add HADOOP-9517 to the list - having compatibility guidelines should help us support users and downstream projects better? Thanks Karthik On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 10:57 AM, Arun C Murthy wrote: > Folks, > > A considerable number of people have expressed confusion regarding the

Re: [VOTE] - Release 2.0.5-beta

good, glad we are back on track again. BTW, we have already started build (IBM and OpenJDK SDK), unit test, and limited integration testing on x86 and POWER, results are promising. Best Regards Amir Sanjar System Management Architect PowerLinux Open Source Hadoop development lead IBM Senior Sof

Re: [VOTE] - Release 2.0.5-beta

Seems like you forgot to bcc. Forwarding this to general. Thanks, +Vinod On May 15, 2013, at 10:57 AM, Arun C Murthy wrote: > Folks, > > A considerable number of people have expressed confusion regarding the recent > vote on 2.0.5, beta status etc. given lack of specifics, the voting itself >

Re: [VOTE] - Release 2.0.5-beta

This is the course that we were taking before the unfortunate disruption. We should be able to meet both the stabilization goals and compatibility goals quickly with this proposal. I personally am willing to invest a lot of time in testing, code reviews and work on adding missing functionality to e

[VOTE] - Release 2.0.5-beta

Folks, A considerable number of people have expressed confusion regarding the recent vote on 2.0.5, beta status etc. given lack of specifics, the voting itself (validity of the vote itself, whose votes are binding) etc. IMHO technical arguments (incompatibility b/w 2.0 & 2.1, current stability

Jenkins build is back to normal : Hadoop-Common-trunk #768

See

[jira] [Resolved] (HADOOP-9523) Provide a generic IBM java vendor flag in PlatformName.java to support non-Sun JREs

[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HADOOP-9523?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel ] Suresh Srinivas resolved HADOOP-9523. - Resolution: Fixed Marking the issue as resolved. > Provide a generic IB