Okay I'll plan to add cdh4 binary as well for the final release! --- sent from my phone On Aug 29, 2014 8:26 AM, "Ye Xianjin" <advance...@gmail.com> wrote:
> We just used CDH 4.7 for our production cluster. And I believe we won't > use CDH 5 in the next year. > > Sent from my iPhone > > > On 2014年8月29日, at 14:39, Matei Zaharia <matei.zaha...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Personally I'd actually consider putting CDH4 back if there are still > users on it. It's always better to be inclusive, and the convenience of a > one-click download is high. Do we have a sense on what % of CDH users still > use CDH4? > > > > Matei > > > > On August 28, 2014 at 11:31:13 PM, Sean Owen (so...@cloudera.com) wrote: > > > > (Copying my reply since I don't know if it goes to the mailing list) > > > > Great, thanks for explaining the reasoning. You're saying these aren't > > going into the final release? I think that moots any issue surrounding > > distributing them then. > > > > This is all I know of from the ASF: > > https://community.apache.org/projectIndependence.html I don't read it > > as expressly forbidding this kind of thing although you can see how it > > bumps up against the spirit. There's not a bright line -- what about > > Tomcat providing binaries compiled for Windows for example? does that > > favor an OS vendor? > > > > From this technical ASF perspective only the releases matter -- do > > what you want with snapshots and RCs. The only issue there is maybe > > releasing something different than was in the RC; is that at all > > confusing? Just needs a note. > > > > I think this theoretical issue doesn't exist if these binaries aren't > > released, so I see no reason to not proceed. > > > > The rest is a different question about whether you want to spend time > > maintaining this profile and candidate. The vendor already manages > > their build I think and -- and I don't know -- may even prefer not to > > have a different special build floating around. There's also the > > theoretical argument that this turns off other vendors from adopting > > Spark if it's perceived to be too connected to other vendors. I'd like > > to maximize Spark's distribution and there's some argument you do this > > by not making vendor profiles. But as I say a different question to > > just think about over time... > > > > (oh and PS for my part I think it's a good thing that CDH4 binaries > > were removed. I wasn't arguing for resurrecting them) > > > >> On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 7:26 AM, Patrick Wendell <pwend...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> Hey Sean, > >> > >> The reason there are no longer CDH-specific builds is that all newer > >> versions of CDH and HDP work with builds for the upstream Hadoop > >> projects. I dropped CDH4 in favor of a newer Hadoop version (2.4) and > >> the Hadoop-without-Hive (also 2.4) build. > >> > >> For MapR - we can't officially post those artifacts on ASF web space > >> when we make the final release, we can only link to them as being > >> hosted by MapR specifically since they use non-compatible licenses. > >> However, I felt that providing these during a testing period was > >> alright, with the goal of increasing test coverage. I couldn't find > >> any policy against posting these on personal web space during RC > >> voting. However, we can remove them if there is one. > >> > >> Dropping CDH4 was more because it is now pretty old, but we can add it > >> back if people want. The binary packaging is a slightly separate > >> question from release votes, so I can always add more binary packages > >> whenever. And on this, my main concern is covering the most popular > >> Hadoop versions to lower the bar for users to build and test Spark. > >> > >> - Patrick > >> > >>> On Thu, Aug 28, 2014 at 11:04 PM, Sean Owen <so...@cloudera.com> > wrote: > >>> +1 I tested the source and Hadoop 2.4 release. Checksums and > >>> signatures are OK. Compiles fine with Java 8 on OS X. Tests... don't > >>> fail any more than usual. > >>> > >>> FWIW I've also been using the 1.1.0-SNAPSHOT for some time in another > >>> project and have encountered no problems. > >>> > >>> > >>> I notice that the 1.1.0 release removes the CDH4-specific build, but > >>> adds two MapR-specific builds. Compare with > >>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/spark/spark-1.0.2/ I > >>> commented on the commit: > >>> > https://github.com/apache/spark/commit/ceb19830b88486faa87ff41e18d03ede713a73cc > >>> > >>> I'm in favor of removing all vendor-specific builds. This change > >>> *looks* a bit funny as there was no JIRA (?) and appears to swap one > >>> vendor for another. Of course there's nothing untoward going on, but > >>> what was the reasoning? It's best avoided, and MapR already > >>> distributes Spark just fine, no? > >>> > >>> This is a gray area with ASF projects. I mention it as well because it > >>> came up with Apache Flink recently > >>> ( > http://mail-archives.eu.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-flink-dev/201408.mbox/%3CCANC1h_u%3DN0YKFu3pDaEVYz5ZcQtjQnXEjQA2ReKmoS%2Bye7%3Do%3DA%40mail.gmail.com%3E > ) > >>> Another vendor rightly noted this could look like favoritism. They > >>> changed to remove vendor releases. > >>> > >>>> On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 3:14 AM, Patrick Wendell <pwend...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >>>> Please vote on releasing the following candidate as Apache Spark > version 1.1.0! > >>>> > >>>> The tag to be voted on is v1.1.0-rc2 (commit 711aebb3): > >>>> > https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=spark.git;a=commit;h=711aebb329ca28046396af1e34395a0df92b5327 > >>>> > >>>> The release files, including signatures, digests, etc. can be found > at: > >>>> http://people.apache.org/~pwendell/spark-1.1.0-rc2/ > >>>> > >>>> Release artifacts are signed with the following key: > >>>> https://people.apache.org/keys/committer/pwendell.asc > >>>> > >>>> The staging repository for this release can be found at: > >>>> > https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachespark-1029/ > >>>> > >>>> The documentation corresponding to this release can be found at: > >>>> http://people.apache.org/~pwendell/spark-1.1.0-rc2-docs/ > >>>> > >>>> Please vote on releasing this package as Apache Spark 1.1.0! > >>>> > >>>> The vote is open until Monday, September 01, at 03:11 UTC and passes > if > >>>> a majority of at least 3 +1 PMC votes are cast. > >>>> > >>>> [ ] +1 Release this package as Apache Spark 1.1.0 > >>>> [ ] -1 Do not release this package because ... > >>>> > >>>> To learn more about Apache Spark, please see > >>>> http://spark.apache.org/ > >>>> > >>>> == Regressions fixed since RC1 == > >>>> LZ4 compression issue: > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SPARK-3277 > >>>> > >>>> == What justifies a -1 vote for this release? == > >>>> This vote is happening very late into the QA period compared with > >>>> previous votes, so -1 votes should only occur for significant > >>>> regressions from 1.0.2. Bugs already present in 1.0.X will not block > >>>> this release. > >>>> > >>>> == What default changes should I be aware of? == > >>>> 1. The default value of "spark.io.compression.codec" is now "snappy" > >>>> --> Old behavior can be restored by switching to "lzf" > >>>> > >>>> 2. PySpark now performs external spilling during aggregations. > >>>> --> Old behavior can be restored by setting "spark.shuffle.spill" to > "false". > >>>> > >>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- > >>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@spark.apache.org > >>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@spark.apache.org > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@spark.apache.org > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@spark.apache.org > > >
