+1 from me too.
With 6 +1 votes (3 of which were from PMC members) and no -1 votes,
this passes. Thanks to everyone who tried it out.
I'm going on vacation tomorrow for a week, which means I can push out
the release to the mirrors, but I won't be able to update the website
links and documentation
+1 on the RC.
Downloaded it, put it under hbase, ran our PerformanceEvaluation test on our
little cluster which runs clients up in MR. All passed. Browsed the UIs.
All looks good.
St.Ack
On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 2:44 AM, Tom White wrote:
> I have created a candidate build for Hadoop 0.19.2. Th
+1
I've been running it too and it works well.
Amandeep Khurana
Computer Science Graduate Student
University of California, Santa Cruz
On Fri, Jul 10, 2009 at 4:21 PM, Dhruba Borthakur wrote:
> I have been running 0.19.2 + few patches and they are working well.
>
> +1, based on unit tests fo
I have been running 0.19.2 + few patches and they are working well.
+1, based on unit tests for 0.19.2.
thanks,
dhruba
On Fri, Jul 10, 2009 at 3:06 PM, Scott Carey wrote:
> +1 Looks good to me. Ran through all of our batch jobs successfully.We
> have actually been using 0.19.2-dev a couple
+1 Looks good to me. Ran through all of our batch jobs successfully.We
have actually been using 0.19.2-dev a couple changes prior to this in
production for almost a month.
Significantly more stable than 0.19.1.
On 7/1/09 2:44 AM, "Tom White" wrote:
I have created a candidate build for H
Since the only place that data is incompatable is in a map, I don't think it
should matter, unless someone has written out a file of TupleWriteables in a
sequence file.
The serialization format is designed to be able to read the old format.
On Thu, Jul 2, 2009 at 3:10 PM, Owen O'Malley wrote:
>
Ok,
I checked and it doesn't break compatibility, but it will write
data that isn't readable by the unpatched code. Rather than push this
back into what is likely the last 0.19 release, I'd propose that we
just backport this to 0.20. Is that reasonable?
-- Owen
I don't believe that patch breaks any compatibility, the change is
completely internal to TupleWritable.
The version in 18, requires larger changes as CompositeInputReader needs to
change also.
On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 11:50 PM, Owen O'Malley wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 8:09 PM, jason hadoop
>
On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 8:09 PM, jason hadoop wrote:
> It is a bug fix,
It removes an undocumented limitation. *sigh*
If I remember right, that patch breaks compatibility. If so, I'd vote
against putting it into any of the release branches.
-- Owen
It is a bug fix, it fixes the mapside join to work as documented instead of
having an undocumented failure case when you have more than 32 tables in
your join statement.
On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 5:40 PM, Nigel Daley wrote:
> HADOOP-5589 is not a bug fix so it shouldn't go into branch-0.19.
>
> Nig
HADOOP-5589 is not a bug fix so it shouldn't go into branch-0.19.
Nige
On Jul 1, 2009, at 7:49 AM, jason hadoop wrote:
Can you put http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HADOOP-5589 in
please?
On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 2:44 AM, Tom White wrote:
I have created a candidate build for Hadoop 0.
+1
cascading unit/regression tests pass
thanks Tom!
ckw
On Jul 1, 2009, at 2:44 AM, Tom White wrote:
I have created a candidate build for Hadoop 0.19.2. This fixes 42
issues in 0.19.1
(http://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/IssueNavigator.jspa?reset=true&mode=hide&sorter/order=DESC&sorter/fiel
Can you put http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HADOOP-5589 in please?
On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 2:44 AM, Tom White wrote:
> I have created a candidate build for Hadoop 0.19.2. This fixes 42
> issues in 0.19.1
> (
> http://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/IssueNavigator.jspa?reset=true&mode=hide&so
13 matches
Mail list logo
