; ,
"yarn-...@hadoop.apache.org" ,
"common-dev@hadoop.apache.org" ,
"mapreduce-...@hadoop.apache.org" , Vinod
Kumar Vavilapalli
Subject: Re: Hadoop 3.1.0 release discussion
Thanks for the update.
On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 4:51 PM, Gangumalla, Uma
mailto:uma.ganguma...@i
Thanks, I saw HDFS-13050 has been resolved 4 hours ago, I don't see any
other blockers under HDFS-10285. I think you guys should be able to start
voting thread in time for merging to trunk.
- Wangda
On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 3:12 AM, Gangumalla, Uma
wrote:
Ozone. Given the discussion on HDFS-7240. Looks challenging
to be done before Jan 2018.
* (Varun V) YARN-5673: container-executor write. Given security refactoring of
c-e (YARN-6623) is already landed, IMHO other stuff may be moved to 3.2.
Thanks,
Wangda
On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 1:49 PM, Ganguma
Sure, Wangda.
Regards,
Uma
On 1/18/18, 10:19 AM, "Wangda Tan" wrote:
Thanks Uma,
Could you update this thread once the merge vote started?
Best,
Wangda
On Wed, Jan 17, 2018 at 4:30 PM, Gangumalla, Uma
wrote:
> HI Wangda,
>
HI Wangda,
Thank you for the head-up mail.
We are in the branch (HDFS-10285) and trying to push the tasks sooner before
the deadline.
Regards,
Uma
On 1/17/18, 11:35 AM, "Wangda Tan" wrote:
Hi All,
Since we're fast approaching previously proposed feature freeze date (Jan
30,
Here is my +1(binding) too.
Sorry for late vote.
Verified signatures of the source tarball.
built from source.
set up a 2-node test cluster.
Tested via HDFS commands and java API – Written bunch of files and read back.
Ran basic MR job
Thanks Andrew and others for the hard work for getting Hado
Plan looks good to me.
+1
Regards,
Uma
On 8/25/17, 10:36 AM, "Andrew Wang" wrote:
>Hi folks,
>
>With 3.0.0-beta1 fast approaching, I wanted to go over the proposed
>branching strategy.
>
>In the early 2.x days, moving trunk immediately to 3.0.0 was a mistake.
>branch-2 and trunk were virtually
+1 (binding)
Regards,
Uma
On 9/27/16, 7:35 PM, "Zheng, Kai" wrote:
>Hi all,
>
>I would like to propose a merge vote for HADOOP-12756 branch to trunk.
>This branch develops support for Aliyun OSS (another cloud storage) in
>Hadoop.
>
>The voting starts now and will run for 7 days till Oct 5, 201
+1 (binding).
Overall it¹s a great effort, Andrew. Thank you for putting all the energy.
Downloaded and built.
Ran some sample jobs.
I would love to see all this efforts will lead to get the GA from Hadoop
3.X soon.
Regards,
Uma
On 8/30/16, 8:51 AM, "Andrew Wang" wrote:
>Hi all,
>
>Thanks t
Thanks Andrew for driving. Sounds good. Go ahead please.
Good luck :-)
Regards,
Uma
On 5/12/16, 10:52 AM, "Andrew Wang" wrote:
>Hi all,
>
>Sounds like we have general agreement on this release numbering scheme for
>3.x.
>
>I'm going to attempt some mvn and JIRA invocations to get the version
>
+1
Regards,
Uma
On 5/10/16, 2:24 PM, "Andrew Wang" wrote:
>+1
>
>On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 12:36 PM, Ravi Prakash
>wrote:
>
>> +1. Thanks for driving this Akira
>>
>> On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 10:25 AM, Tsuyoshi Ozawa
>>wrote:
>>
>> > > Before cutting 3.0.0-alpha RC, I'd like to drop JDK7 support
+1 (non-binding)
+common-dev@hadoop
On 3/21/16, 6:59 PM, "Gangumalla, Uma" wrote:
>+1 (non-binding)
>
>
>Regards,
>Uma
>
>On 3/21/16, 1:45 AM, "Benedikt Ritter" wrote:
>
>>Hi all,
>>
>>after long discussions I think we have gathere
Thanks Chris N for digging back on this details.
The main concern on this question was started like ³Since it¹s nearly
impossible for me to get timely reviews for some build and script changes
Š.². So, Even for CTR process, review is needed thing at some point. I
have one question here is CTR trac
> is it possible for me to setup a branch, self review+commit to that
>branch, then request a branch merge?
Basically this is something like Commit-Then-Review(here review later)
process right. I have not seen we followed this approach here( not sure if
I missed some branches followed that). Even t
+1 for disabling them.
Regards,
Uma
On 2/29/16, 11:16 AM, "Andrew Wang" wrote:
>Hi Kai,
>
>Could you file a JIRA and post patch to disable that checkstyle rule? You
>can look at HADOOP-12713 for an example. Ping me and I'll review.
>
>Best,
>Andrew
>
>On Sun, Feb 28, 2016 at 11:28 PM, Zheng, Ka
Thanks all for the valuable feedbacks and discussions.
Here are my replies for some of the questions..
[Mark wrote]
It depends. I care less about the quality of the code than I do about
the community that comes with it / forms around it. A strong community
can fix code issues. Great code can't save
regory" wrote:
>All files should follow the Commons Maven naming scheme to make it easy to
>reach from Maven, Ivy and so on.
>
>This will be commons-crypto-1.0.jar for example.
>
>Gary
>
>On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 1:06 PM, Gangumalla, Uma
>
>wrote:
>
>> >I w
>I would highly recommend shading this library when it is used in
Hadoop and/or Spark, to prevent version skew problems between Hadoop
and Spark like we have had in the past.
[uma]Ha. This avoids multiple jars versions issues. Agreed IMO.
>I think at a
minimum, we should include the version number
Yes. I think starting 3.0 release with alpha is good idea. So it would get
some time to reach the beta or GA.
+1 for the plan.
For the compatibility purposes and as current stable versions, we should
continue 2.x releases anyway.
Thanks Andrew for starting the thread.
Regards,
Uma
On 2/18/16,
16/16, 11:56 PM, "Benedikt Ritter" wrote:
>Hello Uma,
>
>welcome to the Apache Commons dev list. It's great to see that two
>projects
>get together to share code via Apache Commons.
>
>2016-02-16 22:36 GMT+01:00 Gangumalla, Uma :
>
>> Hi Devs,
>>
>>
Hi Devs,
Recently we worked with Spark community to implement the shuffle encryption.
While implementing that, we realized some/most of the code in Apache Hadoop
encryption code and this implementation code have to be duplicated. This leads
to an idea to create separate reusable library, name
To: common-dev@hadoop.apache.org
>Cc: hdfs-...@hadoop.apache.org
>Subject: Re: Hadoop encryption module as Apache Chimera incubator project
>
>On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 12:06 PM, Gangumalla, Uma
> wrote:
>
>> [UMA] Ok. Great. You are right. I have cc¹ed to hadoop common. (You
>&g
rocessing from MapReduce? Evolving some of
>this code to a common library with few/no dependencies would be generally
>useful. As a subproject, it could have a broader scope that could evolve
>into a viable TLP. If the encryption libraries are the only ones you're
>interested in pulli
Thanks Vinod. +1 for 2.8 release start.
Regards,
Uma
On 2/3/16, 3:53 PM, "Vinod Kumar Vavilapalli" wrote:
>Seems like all the features listed in the Roadmap wiki are in. I¹m going
>to try cutting an RC this weekend for a first/non-stable release off of
>branch-2.8.
>
>Let me know if anyone has
+1
Great addition to HDFS. Thanks all contributors for the nice work.
Regards,
Uma
On 9/22/15, 3:40 PM, "Zhe Zhang" wrote:
>Hi,
>
>I'd like to propose a vote to merge the HDFS-7285 feature branch back to
>trunk. Since November 2014 we have been designing and developing this
>feature under the
Congratulations, Great efforts Sean and team!
Regards,
Uma
On 9/17/15, 8:59 AM, "Sean Busbey" wrote:
>Hi Folks!
>
>At yesterday's ASF board meeting the Apache Yetus TLP was approved.
>There's
>still some ASF Infra work to get done[1] before we can start transitioning
>our mailing list, jira, an
+1
Regards,
Uma
-Original Message-
From: Karthik Kambatla [mailto:ka...@cloudera.com]
Sent: Saturday, August 09, 2014 8:27 AM
To: common-dev@hadoop.apache.org; hdfs-...@hadoop.apache.org;
yarn-...@hadoop.apache.org; mapreduce-...@hadoop.apache.org
Subject: [VOTE] Migration from subversi
+1
Regards,
Uma
-Original Message-
From: Arun C Murthy [mailto:a...@hortonworks.com]
Sent: Tuesday, June 24, 2014 2:24 PM
To: common-dev@hadoop.apache.org; hdfs-...@hadoop.apache.org;
yarn-...@hadoop.apache.org; mapreduce-...@hadoop.apache.org
Subject: [VOTE] Change by-laws on release v
: [DISCUSS] Change by-laws on release votes: 5 days instead of 7
Uma,
Voting periods are defined in *minimum* terms, so it already covers what you'd
like to see i.e. the vote can continue longer.
thanks,
Arun
> On Jun 21, 2014, at 2:19 AM, "Gangumalla, Uma"
> wrote:
>
> H
How about proposing vote for 5days and give chance to RM for extending vote for
2more days( total to 7days) if the rc did not receive enough vote within 5days?
If a rc received enough votes in 5days, RM can close vote.
I can see an advantage of 7days voting is, that will cover all the week and
w
Yes. Suresh.
I have merged HDFS-2006 (Extended Attributes) to branch-2. So, that it will be
included in 2.5 release.
Regards,
Uma
-Original Message-
From: Suresh Srinivas [mailto:sur...@hortonworks.com]
Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2014 10:15 PM
To: mapreduce-...@hadoop.apache.org
Cc: commo
31 matches
Mail list logo
