e.org
Sent: Tuesday, January 7, 2014 8:47:32 AM
Subject: Re: Next releases
This merge to branch-2 is complete. The changes have been merged to
branch-2 and target version set to 2.4.0 (r1556076).
On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 4:13 PM, Arpit Agarwal wrote:
> We plan to merge HDFS-2832 to branch-2 next week
e community discussion before any
>> > code can be written.
>> >
>> > For better or worse, symlinks have not been requested by users as
>> > often as features like NFS export, HDFS caching, ACLs, etc, so effort
>> > has been focused on those inste
gt; > For better or worse, symlinks have not been requested by users as
> > often as features like NFS export, HDFS caching, ACLs, etc, so effort
> > has been focused on those instead.
> >
> > For now, I think we should put the symlinks-disabling patches
> > (HADOOP-
mlinks have not been requested by users as
> often as features like NFS export, HDFS caching, ACLs, etc, so effort
> has been focused on those instead.
>
> For now, I think we should put the symlinks-disabling patches
> (HADOOP-10020, etc) into branch-2, so that they will be part of the
tten.
For better or worse, symlinks have not been requested by users as
often as features like NFS export, HDFS caching, ACLs, etc, so effort
has been focused on those instead.
For now, I think we should put the symlinks-disabling patches
(HADOOP-10020, etc) into branch-2, so that they will be part o
Ok, I've updated https://wiki.apache.org/hadoop/Roadmap with a initial strawman
list for hadoop-2.4 which I feel we can get out in Jan.
What else would folks like to see? Please keep timeframe in mind.
thanks,
Arun
On Dec 2, 2013, at 10:55 AM, Arun C Murthy wrote:
>
> On Nov 13, 2013, at 1:5
On Nov 13, 2013, at 1:55 PM, Jason Lowe wrote:
>
>
> +1 to limiting checkins of patch releases to Blockers/Criticals. If
> necessary committers check into trunk/branch-2 only and defer to the patch
> release manager for the patch release merge. Then there should be fewer
> surprises for ev
On Dec 2, 2013, at 10:31 AM, Arun C Murthy wrote:
> Ok, looks like there are no objections.
>
> I'm starting the work to rename 2.2.1 to 2.3 now. Committers, please hold
> commits till I send out the all clear.
Done. I've renamed 2.3 -> 2.4 and 2.2.1 -> 2.3.
I'll create the first RC for 2.3
Ok, looks like there are no objections.
I'm starting the work to rename 2.2.1 to 2.3 now. Committers, please hold
commits till I send out the all clear.
thanks,
Arun
On Nov 20, 2013, at 6:38 AM, Arun C Murthy wrote:
> Jason,
>
> I'm glad to see we are converging. I'll update the Roadmap wik
Jason,
I'm glad to see we are converging. I'll update the Roadmap wiki with details
about major/minor/patch releases.
Here is a straight-forward approach for now: I'll just roll contents of
branch-2.2 as a 2.3-rc0 candidate right-away. This way we don't have to get
embroiled in details of in
On 14 November 2013 17:15, Colin McCabe wrote:
>
> > HADOOP-9623
> > Update jets3t dependency to 0.9.0
>
> I'm fine with reverting HADOOP-9623 from branch-2.2 and pushing it out
> to branch-2.3. It does bring in httpcore, a dependency that wasn't
> there before.
>
>
I think http componen
On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 10:10 AM, Arun C Murthy wrote:
>
> On Nov 12, 2013, at 1:54 PM, Todd Lipcon wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 2:57 PM, Colin McCabe wrote:
>>
>>> To be honest, I'm not aware of anything in 2.2.1 that shouldn't be
>>> there. However, I have only been following the HDFS a
I think a lot of confusion comes from the fact that the 2.x line is
starting to mature. Before this there wasn't such a big contention of
what went into patch vs. minor releases and often the lines were blurred
between the two. However now we have significant customers and products
starting t
Sound goods, just a little impedance between what seem to be 2 conflicting
goals:
* what features we target for each release
* train releases
If we want to do train releases at fixed times, then if a feature is not
ready, it catches the next train, no delays of the train because of a
feature. If
On Nov 13, 2013, at 12:38 PM, Sandy Ryza wrote:
> Here are few patches that I put into 2.2.1 and are minimally invasive, but
> I don't think are blockers:
>
> YARN-305. Fair scheduler logs too many "Node offered to app" messages.
> YARN-1335. Move duplicate code from FSSchedulerApp and
> FiCa
On 13 November 2013 18:11, Arun C Murthy wrote:
>
>
HADOOP-9623
> Update jets3t dependency to 0.9.0
>
>
I saw that change -I don't think its a bad one, but I do think we need more
testing of blobstores & especially big operations, like 6Gb uploads (which
should now work with the 0.9.0 jet
On Nov 12, 2013, at 1:54 PM, Todd Lipcon wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 2:57 PM, Colin McCabe wrote:
>
>> To be honest, I'm not aware of anything in 2.2.1 that shouldn't be
>> there. However, I have only been following the HDFS and common side
>> of things so I may not have the full picture.
On Nov 12, 2013, at 1:54 PM, Todd Lipcon wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 2:57 PM, Colin McCabe wrote:
>
>> To be honest, I'm not aware of anything in 2.2.1 that shouldn't be
>> there. However, I have only been following the HDFS and common side
>> of things so I may not have the full picture.
On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 2:57 PM, Colin McCabe wrote:
> To be honest, I'm not aware of anything in 2.2.1 that shouldn't be
> there. However, I have only been following the HDFS and common side
> of things so I may not have the full picture. Arun, can you give a
> specific example of something you
HADOOP-10020 is a JIRA that disables symlinks temporarily. They will
be disabled in 2.2.1 as well, if the plan is to have only minor fixes
in that branch.
To be honest, I'm not aware of anything in 2.2.1 that shouldn't be
there. However, I have only been following the HDFS and common side
of thi
Hi Arun,
Another feature that would be relevant and got deferred was the symlink
work (HADOOP-10020) that Colin and Andrew were working on. Can we include
this in hadoop-2.3.0 also?
thanks
hari
On Sun, Nov 10, 2013 at 2:07 PM, Alejandro Abdelnur wrote:
> Arun, thanks for jumping on this.
>
> O
Arun, thanks for jumping on this.
On hadoop branch-2.2. I've quickly scanned the commit logs starting from
the 2.2.0 release and I've found around 20 JIRAs that I like seeing in
2.2.1. Not all of them are bugs but the don't shake anything and improve
usability.
I presume others will have their ow
Arun, what are your thoughts on test-only patches? I know I've been
merging a lot of Windows test stabilization patches down to branch-2.2.
These can't rightly be called blockers, but they do improve dev
experience, and there is no risk to product code.
Chris Nauroth
Hortonworks
http://hortonwor
On 8 November 2013 02:42, Arun C Murthy wrote:
> Gang,
>
> Thinking through the next couple of releases here, appreciate f/b.
>
> # hadoop-2.2.1
>
> I was looking through commit logs and there is a *lot* of content here
> (81 commits as on 11/7). Some are features/improvements and some are fix
ache.org,
yarn-...@hadoop.apache.org, mapreduce-...@hadoop.apache.org
Sent: Friday, November 8, 2013 10:42:36 AM
Subject: Next releases
Gang,
Thinking through the next couple of releases here, appreciate f/b.
# hadoop-2.2.1
I was looking through commit logs and there is a *lot* of content here (81
Gang,
Thinking through the next couple of releases here, appreciate f/b.
# hadoop-2.2.1
I was looking through commit logs and there is a *lot* of content here (81
commits as on 11/7). Some are features/improvements and some are fixes - it's
really hard to distinguish what is important and w
26 matches
Mail list logo
