Re: [VOTE] Accept Tez into Incubator

2013-02-24 Thread Arun C Murthy
Thanks to all who voted. Obviously, I'm +1 (binding) on the proposal. With 14 +1s (10 binding) the vote passes. I'll start the work to get the podling started. thanks, Arun On Feb 19, 2013, at 8:26 PM, Arun C Murthy wrote: > Hi Folks, > > Thanks for participating in the discussion. I'd like t

Re: [VOTE] Accept Tez into Incubator

2013-02-22 Thread Alan Gates
+1. Alan. On Feb 19, 2013, at 8:26 PM, Arun C Murthy wrote: > Hi Folks, > > Thanks for participating in the discussion. I'd like to call a VOTE for > acceptance of Apache Tez into the Incubator. I'll let the vote run till into > this weekend (Sun 2/24 6pm PST). > > [ ] +1 Accept Apache Tez

Re: [VOTE] Accept Tez into Incubator

2013-02-22 Thread Sharad Agarwal
+1 (non-binding) sharad

Re: [VOTE] Accept Tez into Incubator

2013-02-22 Thread Jean-Baptiste Onofré
+1 (binding) Regards JB On 02/21/2013 04:52 PM, Owen O'Malley wrote: +1 (binding) On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 10:07 PM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J) < chris.a.mattm...@jpl.nasa.gov> wrote: +1 (binding) Thanks! Cheers, Chris On 2/19/13 8:26 PM, "Arun C Murthy" wrote: Hi Folks, Thanks for part

Re: [VOTE] Accept Tez into Incubator

2013-02-21 Thread Mahadev Konar
+1 (binding). On Feb 21, 2013, at 1:41 PM, Olivier Lamy wrote: > +1 > > 2013/2/20 Arun C Murthy : >> Hi Folks, >> >> Thanks for participating in the discussion. I'd like to call a VOTE for >> acceptance of Apache Tez into the Incubator. I'll let the vote run till into >> this weekend (Sun 2/

Re: [VOTE] Accept Tez into Incubator

2013-02-21 Thread Olivier Lamy
+1 2013/2/20 Arun C Murthy : > Hi Folks, > > Thanks for participating in the discussion. I'd like to call a VOTE for > acceptance of Apache Tez into the Incubator. I'll let the vote run till into > this weekend (Sun 2/24 6pm PST). > > [ ] +1 Accept Apache Tez into the Incubator > [ ] +0 Don't

Re: [VOTE] Accept Tez into Incubator

2013-02-21 Thread Chris Douglas
+1 (binding) -C On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 8:26 PM, Arun C Murthy wrote: > Hi Folks, > > Thanks for participating in the discussion. I'd like to call a VOTE for > acceptance of Apache Tez into the Incubator. I'll let the vote run till into > this weekend (Sun 2/24 6pm PST). > > [ ] +1 Accept Apac

Re: [VOTE] Accept Tez into Incubator

2013-02-21 Thread Vinod Kumar Vavilapalli
+1 (non-binding) Thanks, +Vinod On Feb 19, 2013, at 8:26 PM, Arun C Murthy wrote: > Hi Folks, > > Thanks for participating in the discussion. I'd like to call a VOTE for > acceptance of Apache Tez into the Incubator. I'll let the vote run till into > this weekend (Sun 2/24 6pm PST). > > [ ]

Re: [VOTE] Accept Tez into Incubator

2013-02-21 Thread Owen O'Malley
+1 (binding) On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 10:07 PM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J) < chris.a.mattm...@jpl.nasa.gov> wrote: > +1 (binding) > > Thanks! > > Cheers, > Chris > > On 2/19/13 8:26 PM, "Arun C Murthy" wrote: > > >Hi Folks, > > > >Thanks for participating in the discussion. I'd like to call a VOTE

Re: [VOTE] Accept Tez into Incubator

2013-02-20 Thread Mattmann, Chris A (388J)
+1 (binding) Thanks! Cheers, Chris On 2/19/13 8:26 PM, "Arun C Murthy" wrote: >Hi Folks, > >Thanks for participating in the discussion. I'd like to call a VOTE for >acceptance of Apache Tez into the Incubator. I'll let the vote run till >into this weekend (Sun 2/24 6pm PST). > >[ ] +1 Accept

Re: [VOTE] Accept Tez into Incubator

2013-02-20 Thread Arun C Murthy
On Feb 20, 2013, at 1:38 PM, Andrew Purtell wrote: >> Arun, would you please clarify how Tez is (conceptually) different from > the Workflow AM proposed in MAPREDUCE-4495/OOZIE-1178? > > I would also like to understand this as well. They seem largely identical, > but the Tez proposal has a set of

Re: [VOTE] Accept Tez into Incubator

2013-02-20 Thread Andrew Purtell
> Arun, would you please clarify how Tez is (conceptually) different from the Workflow AM proposed in MAPREDUCE-4495/OOZIE-1178? I would also like to understand this as well. They seem largely identical, but the Tez proposal has a set of initial committers disjunctive from those who performed the

Re: [VOTE] Accept Tez into Incubator

2013-02-20 Thread Jakob Homan
+1 (binding) -jakob On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 8:26 AM, Alejandro Abdelnur wrote: > +1 (non-binding), glad to see that finally the idea of having a DAG AM is > getting traction. > > Arun, would you please clarify how Tez is (conceptually) different from the > Workflow AM proposed in MAPREDUCE-4495/

Re: [VOTE] Accept Tez into Incubator

2013-02-20 Thread Alejandro Abdelnur
+1 (non-binding), glad to see that finally the idea of having a DAG AM is getting traction. Arun, would you please clarify how Tez is (conceptually) different from the Workflow AM proposed in MAPREDUCE-4495/OOZIE-1178? On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 6:50 AM, Hitesh Shah wrote: > +1 ( non-binding ) >

Re: [VOTE] Accept Tez into Incubator

2013-02-20 Thread Hitesh Shah
+1 ( non-binding ) -- Hitesh On Feb 19, 2013, at 8:26 PM, Arun C Murthy wrote: > Hi Folks, > > Thanks for participating in the discussion. I'd like to call a VOTE for > acceptance of Apache Tez into the Incubator. I'll let the vote run till into > this weekend (Sun 2/24 6pm PST). > > [ ] +

Re: [VOTE] Accept Tez into Incubator

2013-02-19 Thread Ashish
+1 (non-binding) On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 9:56 AM, Arun C Murthy wrote: > Hi Folks, > > Thanks for participating in the discussion. I'd like to call a VOTE for > acceptance of Apache Tez into the Incubator. I'll let the vote run till > into this weekend (Sun 2/24 6pm PST). > > [ ] +1 Accept Apa

Re: [VOTE] Accept Tez into Incubator

2013-02-19 Thread Devaraj Das
+1 (binding). On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 8:26 PM, Arun C Murthy wrote: > Hi Folks, > > Thanks for participating in the discussion. I'd like to call a VOTE for > acceptance of Apache Tez into the Incubator. I'll let the vote run till into > this weekend (Sun 2/24 6pm PST). > > [ ] +1 Accept Apache