Re: branch development for HADOOP-9639
+1good idea Thanks for contributing Sangjin. On Mon, Dec 2, 2013 at 11:47 AM, Sangjin Lee wrote: > We have been having discussions on HADOOP-9639 (shared cache for jars) and > the proposed design there for some time now. We are going to start work on > this and have it vetted and reviewed by the community. I have just filed > some more implementation JIRAs for this feature: YARN-1465, MAPREDUCE-5662, > YARN-1466, YARN-1467 > > Rather than working privately in our corner and sharing a big patch at the > end, I'd like to explore the idea of developing on a branch in the public > to foster more public feedback. Recently the Hadoop PMC has passed the > change to the bylaws to allow for branch committers ( > http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/hadoop-general/201307.mbox/%3CCACO5Y4y7HZnn3BS-ZyCVfv-UBcMudeQhndr2vqg%3DXqE1oBiQvQ%40mail.gmail.com%3E), > and I think it would be a good model for this development. > > I'd like to propose a branch development and a branch committer status for > a couple of us who are going to work on this per bylaw. Could you please > let me know what you think? > > Thanks, > Sangjin
Re: branch development for HADOOP-9639
Chris, I'm already on it. Thanks. On Fri, Dec 6, 2013 at 9:49 AM, Chris Nauroth wrote: > +1 for the idea. The branch committership clause was added for exactly > this kind of scenario. > > From the phrasing in the bylaws, it looks like we'll need assistance from > PMC to get the ball rolling. Is there a PMC member out there who could > volunteer to help start the process with Sangjin? > > Chris Nauroth > Hortonworks > http://hortonworks.com/ > > > > On Mon, Dec 2, 2013 at 11:47 AM, Sangjin Lee wrote: > > > We have been having discussions on HADOOP-9639 (shared cache for jars) > and > > the proposed design there for some time now. We are going to start work > on > > this and have it vetted and reviewed by the community. I have just filed > > some more implementation JIRAs for this feature: YARN-1465, > MAPREDUCE-5662, > > YARN-1466, YARN-1467 > > > > Rather than working privately in our corner and sharing a big patch at > the > > end, I'd like to explore the idea of developing on a branch in the public > > to foster more public feedback. Recently the Hadoop PMC has passed the > > change to the bylaws to allow for branch committers ( > > > > > http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/hadoop-general/201307.mbox/%3CCACO5Y4y7HZnn3BS-ZyCVfv-UBcMudeQhndr2vqg%3DXqE1oBiQvQ%40mail.gmail.com%3E > > ), > > and I think it would be a good model for this development. > > > > I'd like to propose a branch development and a branch committer status > for > > a couple of us who are going to work on this per bylaw. Could you please > > let me know what you think? > > > > Thanks, > > Sangjin > > > > -- > CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE > NOTICE: This message is intended for the use of the individual or entity to > which it is addressed and may contain information that is confidential, > privileged and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader > of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that > any printing, copying, dissemination, distribution, disclosure or > forwarding of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have > received this communication in error, please contact the sender immediately > and delete it from your system. Thank You. > -- Alejandro
Re: branch development for HADOOP-9639
+1 for the idea. The branch committership clause was added for exactly this kind of scenario. >From the phrasing in the bylaws, it looks like we'll need assistance from PMC to get the ball rolling. Is there a PMC member out there who could volunteer to help start the process with Sangjin? Chris Nauroth Hortonworks http://hortonworks.com/ On Mon, Dec 2, 2013 at 11:47 AM, Sangjin Lee wrote: > We have been having discussions on HADOOP-9639 (shared cache for jars) and > the proposed design there for some time now. We are going to start work on > this and have it vetted and reviewed by the community. I have just filed > some more implementation JIRAs for this feature: YARN-1465, MAPREDUCE-5662, > YARN-1466, YARN-1467 > > Rather than working privately in our corner and sharing a big patch at the > end, I'd like to explore the idea of developing on a branch in the public > to foster more public feedback. Recently the Hadoop PMC has passed the > change to the bylaws to allow for branch committers ( > > http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/hadoop-general/201307.mbox/%3CCACO5Y4y7HZnn3BS-ZyCVfv-UBcMudeQhndr2vqg%3DXqE1oBiQvQ%40mail.gmail.com%3E > ), > and I think it would be a good model for this development. > > I'd like to propose a branch development and a branch committer status for > a couple of us who are going to work on this per bylaw. Could you please > let me know what you think? > > Thanks, > Sangjin > -- CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE NOTICE: This message is intended for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is confidential, privileged and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any printing, copying, dissemination, distribution, disclosure or forwarding of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please contact the sender immediately and delete it from your system. Thank You.
branch development for HADOOP-9639
We have been having discussions on HADOOP-9639 (shared cache for jars) and the proposed design there for some time now. We are going to start work on this and have it vetted and reviewed by the community. I have just filed some more implementation JIRAs for this feature: YARN-1465, MAPREDUCE-5662, YARN-1466, YARN-1467 Rather than working privately in our corner and sharing a big patch at the end, I'd like to explore the idea of developing on a branch in the public to foster more public feedback. Recently the Hadoop PMC has passed the change to the bylaws to allow for branch committers ( http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/hadoop-general/201307.mbox/%3CCACO5Y4y7HZnn3BS-ZyCVfv-UBcMudeQhndr2vqg%3DXqE1oBiQvQ%40mail.gmail.com%3E), and I think it would be a good model for this development. I'd like to propose a branch development and a branch committer status for a couple of us who are going to work on this per bylaw. Could you please let me know what you think? Thanks, Sangjin
