Hi,
I posted a patch to hadoop-10895 couple of days back. Wonder if anyone
could help doing a review?
Thanks a lot.
--Yongjun
On Sun, Oct 19, 2014 at 11:35 AM, Yongjun Zhang wrote:
> Thanks Arun for the info and reminder.
>
> Hi Alejandro,
>
> HADOOP-10895 is a blocker in the list Arun sent out and it's currently
> owned by you. I wonder whether you will have time to work on. If not, would
> you mind reassigning it to me and I will spend time on it?
>
> Thanks.
>
> --Yongjun
>
>
> On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 11:25 AM, Arun C Murthy
> wrote:
>
>> 2.6.0 is close now.
>>
>> Here are the remaining blockers, I'm hoping cut an RC in the next week or
>> so:
>> http://s.apache.org/hadoop-2.6.0-blockers
>>
>> thanks,
>> Arun
>>
>> On Sep 30, 2014, at 10:42 AM, Arun C Murthy wrote:
>>
>> > Folks,
>> >
>> > I've created branch-2.6 to stabilize the release.
>> >
>> > Committers, please exercise caution henceforth on commits other than
>> the ones we've discussed on this thread already.
>> >
>> > By default new features should now be targeted to the version "2.7"
>> henceforth - I've ensure all the projects have that version on jira.
>> >
>> > thanks,
>> > Arun
>> >
>> > On Sep 26, 2014, at 1:08 AM, Arun Murthy wrote:
>> >
>> >> Sounds good. I'll branch this weekend and we can merge the jiras we
>> >> discussed in this thread as they they get wrapped next week.
>> >>
>> >> Thanks everyone.
>> >>
>> >> Arun
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>> On Sep 24, 2014, at 7:39 PM, Vinod Kumar Vavilapalli <
>> vino...@apache.org> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> We can branch off in a week or two so that work on branch-2 itself
>> can go
>> >>> ahead with other features that can't fit in 2.6. Independent of that,
>> we
>> >>> can then decide on the timeline of the release candidates once
>> branch-2.6
>> >>> is close to being done w.r.t the planned features.
>> >>>
>> >>> Branching it off can let us focus on specific features that we want
>> in for
>> >>> 2.6 and then eventually blockers for the release, nothing else. There
>> is a
>> >>> trivial pain of committing to one more branch, but it's worth it in
>> this
>> >>> case IMO.
>> >>>
>> >>> A lot of efforts are happening in parallel from the YARN side from
>> where I
>> >>> see. 2.6 is a little bulky if only on the YARN side and I'm afraid if
>> we
>> >>> don't branch off and selectively try to get stuff in, it is likely to
>> be in
>> >>> a perpetual delay.
>> >>>
>> >>> My 2 cents.
>> >>>
>> >>> +Vinod
>> >>>
>> >>> On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 3:28 PM, Suresh Srinivas <
>> sur...@hortonworks.com>
>> >>> wrote:
>> >>>
>> Given some of the features are in final stages of stabilization,
>> Arun, we should hold off creating 2.6 branch or building an RC by a
>> week?
>> All the features in flux are important ones and worth delaying the
>> release
>> by a week.
>>
>> On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 11:36 AM, Andrew Wang <
>> andrew.w...@cloudera.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > Hey Nicholas,
>> >
>> > My concern about Archival Storage isn't related to the code quality
>> or
>> the
>> > size of the feature. I think that you and Jing did good work. My
>> concern
>> is
>> > that once we ship, we're locked into that set of archival storage
>> APIs,
>> and
>> > these APIs are not yet finalized. Simply being able to turn off the
>> feature
>> > does not change the compatibility story.
>> >
>> > I'm willing to devote time to help review these JIRAs and kick the
>> tires
>> on
>> > the APIs, but my point above was that I'm not sure it'd all be done
>> by
>> the
>> > end of the week. Testing might also reveal additional changes that
>> need
>> to
>> > be made, which also might not happen by end-of-week.
>> >
>> > I guess the question before us is if we're comfortable putting
>> something
>> in
>> > branch-2.6 and then potentially adding API changes after. I'm okay
>> with
>> > that as long as we're all aware that this might happen.
>> >
>> > Arun, as RM is this cool with you? Again, I like this feature and
>> I'm
>> fine
>> > with it's inclusion, just a heads up that we might need some extra
>> time
>> to
>> > finalize things before an RC can be cut.
>> >
>> > Thanks,
>> > Andrew
>> >
>> > On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 7:30 PM, Tsz Wo (Nicholas), Sze <
>> > s29752-hadoop...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Hi,
>> >>
>> >> I am worry about KMS and transparent encryption since there are
>> quite
>> > many
>> >> bugs discovered after it got merged to branch-2. It gives us an
>> > impression
>> >> that the feature is not yet well tested. Indeed, transparent
>> encryption
>> > is
>> >> a complicated feature which changes the core part of HDFS. It is
>> not
>> > easy
>> >> to get everything right.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> For HDFS-6584: Archival Storage, it is a relatively simple and low
>
