Looks like we are all clear now, I'll create an RC presently.
Thanks everyone.
Arun
On 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 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
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
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
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-2.1 recently.
Currently we only have 2 blockers: HADOOP-9984 & MAP
; -Original Message-
> From: Arun C Murthy [mailto:a...@hortonworks.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2013 4:15 PM
> To: common-...@hadoop.apache.org; hdfs-dev@hadoop.apache.org;
> yarn-...@hadoop.apache.org; mapreduce-...@hadoop.apache.org
> Subject: 2.1.2 (Was: Re: [VOTE] Rele
+1 for naming the new branch 2.2.0
sanjay
On Oct 1, 2013, at 4:55 PM, Suresh Srinivas wrote:
> (This time copying all the lists)
>
> I am +1 for naming the new branch 2.2.0.
>
>
> On Tue, Oct 1, 2013 at 4:15 PM, Arun C Murthy wrote:
>
>> Guys,
>>
>> I took a look at the content in 2.1.2-bet
+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.
Thanks,
+Vinod
On Oct 1, 2013, at 4:15 PM, Arun C Murthy wrote:
> Guys,
>
> I took a look at the content in 2.1.2-beta so far, other than the critical
> fixes such
(This time copying all the lists)
I am +1 for naming the new branch 2.2.0.
On Tue, Oct 1, 2013 at 4:15 PM, Arun C Murthy wrote:
> Guys,
>
> I took a look at the content in 2.1.2-beta so far, other than the
> critical fixes such as HADOOP-9984 (symlinks) and few others in YARN/MR,
> there is f
Arun,
Does this mean that you want to skip a beta release and go straight to GA
with the next release?
thx
On Tue, Oct 1, 2013 at 4:15 PM, Arun C Murthy wrote:
> Guys,
>
> I took a look at the content in 2.1.2-beta so far, other than the
> critical fixes such as HADOOP-9984 (symlinks) and fe
Guys,
I took a look at the content in 2.1.2-beta so far, other than the critical
fixes such as HADOOP-9984 (symlinks) and few others in YARN/MR, there is fairly
little content (unit tests fixes etc.)
Furthermore, it's standing up well in testing too. Plus, the protocols look
good for now (I
Done.
On Sep 27, 2013, at 9:07 AM, Robert Kanter wrote:
> Hi,
>
> When will the 2.1.1-beta jars be published in maven so downstream projects
> can start using them? I only see 2.1.0-beta.
>
> thanks
> - Robert
>
>
> On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 4:24 PM, Zhijie Shen wrote:
>
>> I've added MAPRE
I've added MAPREDUCE-5531 to the blocker list. - Zhijie
On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 3:41 PM, Arun C Murthy wrote:
> With 4 +1s (3 binding) and no -1s the vote passes. I'll push it out… I'll
> make it clear on the release page, that there are some known issues and
> that we will follow up very short
With 4 +1s (3 binding) and no -1s the vote passes. I'll push it out… I'll make
it clear on the release page, that there are some known issues and that we will
follow up very shortly with another release.
Meanwhile, let's fix the remaining blockers (please mark them as such with
Target Version 2
I ran through my usual check-list for validating the RC. I only checked the
source tarball.
- Signatures and message digests all good. I guess because of differences in
gpg2's version, the message digest has different text wrapping. Anyways.
- The top level full LICENSE, NOTICE and README are g
I've created 2.1.2-beta release version. Please use that for any *critical*
commits on branch-2.1-beta branch. Please be careful, let's keep #commits here
very small.
thanks,
Arun
On Sep 24, 2013, at 2:07 PM, Andrew Wang wrote:
> Hey Arun,
>
> That plan sounds good to me, thanks for being on
Hey Arun,
That plan sounds good to me, thanks for being on top of things. What's the
new fix version we should be using (2.1.2 or 2.2.0)? Would be good to get
the same clarification regarding which branches should be receiving
commits. I think a 2.1.2 would be nice to get the symlinks changes in a
Rather than spin another RC, let's get this out and follow up with the next
release - especially since it's not clear how long it will take for the symlink
stuff to sort itself out.
Getting this out will help downstream projects, even if it does so in small way.
Arun
On Sep 23, 2013, at 5:36 P
Update: HDFS-5228 has been resolved. It was committed to branch-2.1-beta,
so I think there was an assumption that this would warrant a new RC. (If
that's not the case, then we ought to pull HDFS-5228 back out of
branch-2.1-beta to avoid confusion.)
Chris Nauroth
Hortonworks
http://hortonworks.co
ping
On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 2:36 AM, Alejandro Abdelnur wrote:
> Vote for the 2.1.1-beta release is closing tonight, while we had quite a
> few +1s, it seems we need to address the following before doing a release:
>
> symlink discussion: get a concrete and explicit understanding on what we
> w
Vote for the 2.1.1-beta release is closing tonight, while we had quite a
few +1s, it seems we need to address the following before doing a release:
symlink discussion: get a concrete and explicit understanding on what we
will do and in what release(s).
Also, the following JIRAs seem nasty enough
+1 (binding)
Verified the signatures and hashes for both src and binary tars. Built from
the source, the binary distribution and the documentation. Started a single
node cluster and tested the following:
# Started HDFS cluster, verified the hdfs CLI commands such ls, copying
data back and forth,
Are we doing a new RC for 2.1.1-beta?
On Mon, Sep 23, 2013 at 9:04 PM, Vinod Kumar Vavilapalli wrote:
> Correct me if I am wrong, but FWIU, we already released a beta with the
> same symlink issues. Given 2.1.1 is just another beta, I believe we can go
> ahead with it and resolve the issues in
Correct me if I am wrong, but FWIU, we already released a beta with the same
symlink issues. Given 2.1.1 is just another beta, I believe we can go ahead
with it and resolve the issues in the final GA release. Instead of resetting
the testing done by everyone.
It's a hard story to sell but beta
We still need to resolve some symlink issues; are we planning to spin a new
RC? Leaving it as-is is not a good option.
On Sun, Sep 22, 2013 at 11:23 PM, Roman Shaposhnik wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 11:38 PM, Arun C Murthy
> wrote:
> > Folks,
> >
> > I've created a release candidate (rc0)
I suspect that HDFS-5228 needs to be a blocker for the RC, considering the
impact on client code. Existing working client code can now get a
NullPointerException as a result of this bug.
Chris Nauroth
Hortonworks
http://hortonworks.com/
On Wed, Sep 18, 2013 at 3:41 PM, Roman Shaposhnik wrote:
On Wed, Sep 18, 2013 at 12:03 AM, Karthik Kambatla wrote:
> Not sure if this should be a blocker for 2.1.1, but filed HADOOP-9976 to
> have a single version of avro.
>
>
It depends if there is a known and non-workaroundable issue at runtime
because of this. If not I wouldn't say it is a blocker.
Hey all,
Sorry to hijack the vote thread, but it'd be good to get some input on my
email from yesterday re: symlink support in branch-2.1. I think it really
should be in GA one way or the other.
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/hadoop-common-dev/201309.mbox/%3CCAGB5D2ZDjqt69oFfv_HOsWEH18T
Thanks Arun.
+1
* Downloaded source tarball.
* Verified MD5
* Verified signature
* run apache-rat:check ok after minor tweak (see NIT1 below)
* checked CHANGES.txt headers (see NIT2 below)
* built DIST from source
* verified hadoop version of Hadoop JARs
* configured pseudo cluster
* tested HttpF
Folks,
I've created a release candidate (rc0) for hadoop-2.1.1-beta that I would like
to get released - this release fixes a number of bugs on top of
hadoop-2.1.0-beta as a result of significant amounts of testing.
If things go well, this might be the last of the *beta* releases of hadoop-2.x.
30 matches
Mail list logo
