Thanks for highlighting my concern, Matt.
I do not profess to great wisdom in the mechanisms of planning for, developing
and putting out stable releases of Hadoop.
My point of view is quite simple, and pardon me for stating the obvious: A
thriving Hadoop community is more that the developers of
+1 (binding)
Thanks Matt.
Arun
On May 21, 2013, at 7:03 PM, Matt Foley wrote:
> This was previously discussed in the thread "[PROPOSAL] change in bylaws to
> remove Release Plan vote". 13 people explicitly cast "+1"s in that thread.
> Absent objection I will count those as votes without requir
+1 (non-binding)
Best Regards
Ahmed
On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 7:03 PM, Matt Foley wrote:
> This was previously discussed in the thread "[PROPOSAL] change in bylaws to
> remove Release Plan vote". 13 people explicitly cast "+1"s in that thread.
> Absent objection I will count those as votes witho
Hi Guys,
+1
We @ ebay would like to see snapshots before we start testing/deploying
hadoop 2.0 next month.
Thanks,
Mayank
On Wed, 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 st
Hi Jagane,
My response to your concerns is that I hope the PMC will have enough wisdom
not to pass votes for a confusing number of releases -- if only to avoid
the kind of fragmentation you point out could happen.
To date, however, this does not seem to have been a major problem in our
community.
Hi Konstantin,
The amendment I've proposed actually leaves the Release Plan in place. In
fact, where one could say the current bylaws don't require a Release Plan
for every release, this amendment makes clear that it does. It just
doesn't have to be voted on.
I would think that a controversial
Couldn't reply yesterday.
I will try to argue this is a useful action and that keeping it in Bylaws
does not change regular release process.
- Bylaws do not require to vote on every release plan.
If nobody complains then it is a routine process of building a RC and
voting on it.
- It is useful to
Giridharan Kesavan created HADOOP-9592:
--
Summary: libhdfs append test fails
Key: HADOOP-9592
URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HADOOP-9592
Project: Hadoop Common
Issue Type: Bug
+1 (non-binding)
On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 10:04 AM, Roman Shaposhnik wrote:
> +1 (non-binding)
>
> On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 10:00 AM, Chris Nauroth
> wrote:
> > +1 (non-binding)
> >
> > Chris Nauroth
> > Hortonworks
> > http://hortonworks.com/
> >
> >
> >
> > On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 7:58 AM, Tom
+1 (non-binding)
On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 10:00 AM, Chris Nauroth
wrote:
> +1 (non-binding)
>
> Chris Nauroth
> Hortonworks
> http://hortonworks.com/
>
>
>
> On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 7:58 AM, Tom White wrote:
>
>> +1
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Tom
>>
>> On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 10:10 PM, Matt Foley wrote:
>
+1 (non-binding)
Chris Nauroth
Hortonworks
http://hortonworks.com/
On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 7:58 AM, Tom White wrote:
> +1
>
> Cheers,
> Tom
>
> On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 10:10 PM, Matt Foley wrote:
> > Hi all,
> > This has been a side topic in several email threads recently. Currently
> we
>
common-dev and hdfs-dev removed/bcc'd
Hi Mohammad,
Rack awareness is supported in 2.0.3-alpha. The only potential problem I
see in your configuration is that topology.sh contains a definition for
HADOOP_CONF that points back at your hadoop-0.22.0/conf directory. If that
directory doesn't contai
+1
Cheers,
Tom
On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 10:10 PM, Matt Foley wrote:
> Hi all,
> This has been a side topic in several email threads recently. Currently we
> have an ambiguity. We have a tradition in the dev community that any
> committer can create a branch, and propose release candidates from
+1
On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 7:37 PM, Jonathan Eagles wrote:
> +1
>
>
> On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 4:10 PM, Matt Foley wrote:
>
> > Hi all,
> > This has been a side topic in several email threads recently. Currently
> we
> > have an ambiguity. We have a tradition in the dev community that any
> >
+1
On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 4:10 PM, Matt Foley wrote:
> Hi all,
> This has been a side topic in several email threads recently. Currently we
> have an ambiguity. We have a tradition in the dev community that any
> committer can create a branch, and propose release candidates from it. Yet
> t
+1
Jason
On 05/21/2013 09:03 PM, Matt Foley wrote:
This was previously discussed in the thread "[PROPOSAL] change in bylaws to
remove Release Plan vote". 13 people explicitly cast "+1"s in that thread.
Absent objection I will count those as votes without requiring them to
(re-)respond to thi
+1 Thanks Matt.
Tom
On 5/21/13 9:03 PM, "Matt Foley" wrote:
>This was previously discussed in the thread "[PROPOSAL] change in bylaws
>to
>remove Release Plan vote". 13 people explicitly cast "+1"s in that
>thread.
> Absent objection I will count those as votes without requiring them to
>(re-)
+1
On 05/17/2013 04:10 PM, Thomas Graves wrote:
Hello all,
We've had a few critical issues come up in 0.23.7 that I think warrants a
0.23.8 release. The main one is MAPREDUCE-5211. There are a couple of
other issues that I want finished up and get in before we spin it. Those
include HDFS-3875
Is Hadoop-2.0.3-alpha does not support Rack-awarness?
I am trying to make Hadoop cluster Rack-Aware for a week but I
haven't succeed.
What I am doing.
I am adding following property in etc/hadoop/core-site.xml :
net.topology.script.file.name
/home/hadoop/hadoop-2.0.3-alpha/etc/hadoop/topology.sh
+1 (committer vote; not sure if it is binding on this or not)
On 21 May 2013 23:47, Jagane Sundar wrote:
> I see one significant benefit to having Release Plan votes: Fewer releases
> with more members of the community working on any given release.
> In turn, fewer Hadoop releases implies less confusion for end users
> attempting to download and use an Apac
Forgot to say: Vote will close one week after it started, at 7:05pm PDT on
Tuesday 28 May.
Thanks,
--Matt
On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 7:03 PM, Matt Foley wrote:
> This was previously discussed in the thread "[PROPOSAL] change in bylaws
> to remove Release Plan vote". 13 people explicitly cast "+1"
Tx for taking care of this, Matt. It had to be done.
+1
Thanks,
+Vinod
On May 21, 2013, at 7:03 PM, Matt Foley wrote:
> This was previously discussed in the thread "[PROPOSAL] change in bylaws to
> remove Release Plan vote". 13 people explicitly cast "+1"s in that thread.
> Absent objection I
23 matches
Mail list logo
