Whoops os64Bit=false, I meant. On Aug 15, 2012 8:29 AM, "Adrian Cole" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Yeah. I think this can help with yarn testing, too. Ex. > osFamily=CENTOS,osFamily64Bit=false > > I'll work it up, now. > On Aug 15, 2012 8:17 AM, "Andrew Bayer" <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Sounds just fine to me. >> >> A. >> >> On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 7:49 AM, Adrian Cole <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> > +1 to getting 0.8.0 out soon. Id like to make a trivial update, if >> > possible. >> > >> > Right now, using private clouds can only be by image id. I'd like to >> skip >> > the hardcoding of ubuntu 10.04, if someone sets the property >> > whirr.template. >> > >> > Ex. >> > >> > whirr.template=osFamily=CENTOS >> > >> > This would directly defer to the jclouds TemplateBuilderSpec logic. If >> we >> > did this, it would be easy to support vcloud. VCloud does have is >> family >> > info in the API, just not version. >> > Ex. osFamily=UBUNTU can work on any base vCloud that has an image of it, >> > but osFamily=UBUNTU,osVersionMatches=10.04 will not. >> > >> > I would also sign up to edit the doc page, and could do this today. Any >> > against? >> > >> > -A >> > On Aug 14, 2012 4:40 PM, "Andrew Bayer" <[email protected]> wrote: >> > >> > > So I'd like to cross off two more bugs (as well as bumping to jclouds >> > > beta.10 and Tom looking into the YARN config error in tests) and then >> cut >> > > an RC: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/WHIRR-604 and >> > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/WHIRR-612. I've spent today >> > beating >> > > those guys up, and now have 'em working properly such that I'm running >> > > tests with basically the same results (modulo a little weirdness in >> core, >> > > where jclouds.endpoint ends up not being used) on EC2, Rackspace (old >> > gen - >> > > next gen apparently isn't going to have reverse-resolvable IPs for at >> > least >> > > a while. blergh) and our internal Cloudstack setup. >> > > >> > > Once those are reviewed and committed and Tom has looked at the YARN >> > thing, >> > > I'd like to go ahead with the RC. Does anyone else have any immediate >> > > pressing things they'd like to get in? The idea here is to get 0.8.0 >> out >> > > ASAP, and be able to turn around 0.8.1 as fast as needed after that. >> > > Iteration, iteration, iteration. =) >> > > >> > > A. >> > > >> > >> >
