Let me merge HADOOP-8285 and HADOOP-8366. Thanks. Tsz-Wo
----- Original Message ----- From: Uma Maheswara Rao G <mahesw...@huawei.com> To: "general@hadoop.apache.org" <general@hadoop.apache.org> Cc: Sent: Monday, May 14, 2012 10:56 AM Subject: RE: [VOTE] Release hadoop-2.0.0-alpha > a) Revert HDFS-3157 and commit HADOOP-8285 and HADOOP-8366 on > branch-2.0.0-alpha, so these are the only changes since rc0. Roll a > new rc1 from here. I have merged HDFS-3157 revert. Do you mind taking a look at HADOOP-8285 and HADOOP-8366? Thanks, Uma ________________________________________ From: Arun C Murthy [a...@hortonworks.com] Sent: Monday, May 14, 2012 10:24 PM To: general@hadoop.apache.org Subject: Re: [VOTE] Release hadoop-2.0.0-alpha Todd, Please go ahead and merge changes into branch-2.0.0-alpha and I'll roll RC1. thanks, Arun On May 12, 2012, at 10:05 PM, Todd Lipcon wrote: > Looking at the release tag vs the current state of branch-2, I have > two concerns from the point of view of HDFS: > > 1) We reverted HDFS-3157 in branch-2 because it sends deletions for > corrupt replicas without properly going through the "corrupt block" > path. We saw this cause data loss in TestPipelinesFailover. So, I'm > nervous about putting it in a release, even labeled as alpha. > > 2) HADOOP-8285 and HADOOP-8366 changed the wire format for the RPC > envelope in branch-2, but didn't make it into this rc. So, that would > mean that future alphas would not be protocol-compatible with this > alpha. Per a discussion a few weeks ago, I think we all were in > agreement that, if possible, we'd like all 2.x to be compatible for > client-server communication, at least (even if we don't support > cross-version for the intra-cluster protocols) > > Do other folks think it's worth rolling an rc1? I would propose either: > a) Revert HDFS-3157 and commit HADOOP-8285 and HADOOP-8366 on > branch-2.0.0-alpha, so these are the only changes since rc0. Roll a > new rc1 from here. > or: > b) Discard the current branch-2.0.0-alpha and re-branch from the > current state of branch-2. > > -Todd > > On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 7:19 PM, Eli Collins <e...@cloudera.com> wrote: >> +1 I installed the build on a 6 node cluster and kicked the tires, >> didn't find any blocking issues. >> >> Btw in the future better to build from the svn repo so the revision is >> an svn rev from the release branch. Eg 1336254 instead of 40e90d3c7 >> which is from the git mirror, this way we're consistent across >> releases. >> >> hadoop-2.0.0-alpha $ ./bin/hadoop version >> Hadoop 2.0.0-alpha >> Subversion >> git://devadm900.cc1.ygridcore.net/grid/0/dev/acm/hadoop-trunk/hadoop-common-project/hadoop-common >> -r 40e90d3c7e5d71aedcdc2d9cc55d078e78944c55 >> Compiled by hortonmu on Wed May 9 16:19:55 UTC 2012 >> From source with checksum 3d9a13a31ef3a9ab4b5cba1f982ab888 >> >> >> On Wed, May 9, 2012 at 9:58 AM, Arun C Murthy <a...@hortonworks.com> wrote: >>> I've created a release candidate for hadoop-2.0.0-alpha that I would like >>> to release. >>> >>> It is available at: >>> http://people.apache.org/~acmurthy/hadoop-2.0.0-alpha-rc0/ >>> >>> The maven artifacts are available via repository.apache.org. >>> >>> Please try the release and vote; the vote will run for the usual 7 days. >>> >>> This is a big milestone for the Apache Hadoop community - congratulations >>> and thanks for all the contributions! >>> >>> thanks, >>> Arun >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Arun C. Murthy >>> Hortonworks Inc. >>> http://hortonworks.com/ >>> >>> > > > > -- > Todd Lipcon > Software Engineer, Cloudera -- Arun C. Murthy Hortonworks Inc. http://hortonworks.com/
