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
+1. Non-binding.
Thanks,
Junping
On Fri, Jun 20, 2014 at 10:54 PM, Arun C Murthy wrote:
> Folks,
>
> I'd like to propose we change our by-laws to reduce our voting periods on
> new releases from 7 days to 5.
>
> Currently, it just takes too long to turn around releases; particularly
> if we
Hi Steve, let me confirm that I understand your proposal correctly:
- Release an intermediate Hadoop 3 a few months out, based on JDK7 and with
bumped library versions
- Release a Hadoop 4 mid next year, based on JDK8
I question the utility of an intermediate Hadoop 3 like this. Assuming that
it
Sounds good to me. Remove MAPREDUCE-5831 out of the scope of 2.4.1.
On Sat, Jun 21, 2014 at 2:29 AM, Arun C Murthy wrote:
> On Jun 20, 2014, at 11:23 AM, Vinod Kumar Vavilapalli
> wrote:
>
> > Unfortunately even though we documented wire compatiblity, cross-version
> > client/server support do
On 21 June 2014 08:01, Andrew Wang wrote:
> Hi Steve, let me confirm that I understand your proposal correctly:
>
> - Release an intermediate Hadoop 3 a few months out, based on JDK7 and with
> bumped library versions
> - Release a Hadoop 4 mid next year, based on JDK8
>
> I question the utility
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:
>
> How about proposing vote for 5days and give chance to RM for extending vote
> for 2m
Andrew,
> On Jun 21, 2014, at 8:01 AM, Andrew Wang wrote:
>
> Hi Steve, let me confirm that I understand your proposal correctly:
>
> - Release an intermediate Hadoop 3 a few months out, based on JDK7 and with
> bumped library versions
> - Release a Hadoop 4 mid next year, based on JDK8
>
> I
+1 (binding)
1. rm -rf ~/.m2/repository/org/apache/hadoop/
2. build and test of slider/incubating develop branch with profile
hadoop-2.4.1, which downloaded all the new artifacts from the repository
3. -tests passed
-steve
On 20 June 2014 23:51, Arun C Murthy wrote:
> Folks,
>
After further consideration, here is an alternate.
On Jun 21, 2014, at 11:14 AM, "Arun C. Murthy" wrote:
>
> JDK6 eol was Feb 2013 and, a year later, we are still have customers using it
> - which means we can't drop it yet.
>
> http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/java/eol-135779.html
>
> Give
+1 (non-binding)
Successfully redo the steps for rc0 before for rc1 as well.
On Sun, Jun 22, 2014 at 6:22 AM, Steve Loughran
wrote:
> +1 (binding)
>
>
>1. rm -rf ~/.m2/repository/org/apache/hadoop/
>2. build and test of slider/incubating develop branch with profile
>hadoop-2.4.1, w
+1 (non-binding),
Built from rc1 source code
Installed single node cluster.
Ran several YARN applications and get passed.
Thanks,
Wangda
On Sun, Jun 22, 2014 at 9:07 AM, Zhijie Shen wrote:
> +1 (non-binding)
>
> Successfully redo the steps for rc0 before for rc1 as well.
>
>
> On Sun, Jun 22
On Fri, Jun 20, 2014 at 10:02 PM, Arun C Murthy wrote:
> > Hadoop 3.x out the door later this year
>
> +1 that makes sense to me. Thanks for volunteering Steve - I'm glad to
> share the pain… ;-)
Hey Arun, you may have missed that Andrew volunteered for doing this as
well (the thread is long,
12 matches
Mail list logo
