Re: 2.1.2 (Was: Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Hadoop 2.1.1-beta)

I don't think HADOOP-9972 is a must-do for the next Apache release, whatever version number it ends up having. It's just adding a new API, not changing any existing ones, and it can be done entirely in generic code. (The globber doesn't involve FileSystem or AFS subclasses). My understanding is

Re: 2.1.2 (Was: Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Hadoop 2.1.1-beta)

If we're serious about not breaking compatibility after GA, then we need to slow down and make sure we get these new APIs right, or can add them in a compatible fashion. HADOOP-9984 ended up being a bigger change than initially expected, and we need to break compatibility with out-of-tree FileSyst

Re: 2.1.2 (Was: Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Hadoop 2.1.1-beta)

On Tue, Oct 1, 2013 at 5:15 PM, Vinod Kumar Vavilapalli wrote: > +1. We should get an RC as soon as possible so that we can get all the > downstream components to sign off. > The earlier the better. On this very note -- would there be any interest in joining efforts with the Bigtop integration a

Re: 2.1.2 (Was: Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Hadoop 2.1.1-beta)

On Tue, Oct 1, 2013 at 8:59 PM, Arun C Murthy wrote: > Yes, sorry if it wasn't clear. > > As others seem to agree, I think we'll be better getting a protocol/api > stable GA done and then iterating on bugs etc. > > I'm not super worried about HADOOP-9984 since symlinks just made it to > branch-2

Build failed in Jenkins: Hadoop-Common-trunk #909

See Changes: [vinodkv] YARN-1260. Added webapp.http.address to yarn-default.xml so that default install with https enabled doesn't have broken link on NM UI. Contributed by Omkar Vinit Joshi. [cnauroth] HDFS-5279. Guard against Nu