Re: [DISCUSS] Clarify bylaws on PMC chair voting
That sounds good to me. On 11/15/12 8:44 PM, Konstantin Shvachko shv.had...@gmail.com wrote: The tiebreaker can be resolved by the current PMC chair. Or left for the board to choose. Thanks, --Konst On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 1:12 PM, Tsz Wo Sze szets...@yahoo.com wrote: Owen's proposal sounds good in general. There are slight variances of STV. I guess Owen probably means the one used in Apache board voting (http://wiki.apache.org/general/BoardVoting). We should add a link to their wiki in our bylaws. How about tiebreaker? What if there are only two candidates and they get exactly the same number of votes? Tsz-Wo From: Robert Evans ev...@yahoo-inc.com To: general@hadoop.apache.org general@hadoop.apache.org Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2012 12:10 PM Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Clarify bylaws on PMC chair voting Vinod, I don't see what the PMC Chair does has any barring on how we select them. Yes I agree that a -1 will not be an issue. That is why I said However, I don't think in practice it really matters if we allow for vetoes or not. I too am +1 for Owen's suggestion, but I would like to see a vote thread with the exact diff of the change to the bylaws. --Bobby On 11/13/12 12:47 PM, Vinod Kumar Vavilapalli vino...@hortonworks.com wrote: +1 to Owen's suggestion. Bobby, recall that PMC Chair is (just) a representative who communicates with the board on behalf of the PMC, and not any sort of leader (See http://www.apache.org/dev/pmc.html#chair); all the project decisions are driven by the PMC collectively. Given that, one should not expect vetoes at all in this vote. Thanks, +Vinod On Nov 13, 2012, at 7:25 AM, Robert Evans wrote: The current bylaws state that the PMC chair recommendation to the apache board should be based off of lazy consensus. That means that any PMC member can -1(veto) a candidate so long as they give a valid reason with the veto. The validity of the reason for the veto if challenged can be confirmed by another PMC member. I am fine with the proposal to use STV. However, I don't think in practice it really matters if we allow for vetoes or not. If someone really feels strongly enough to veto a candidate, they would also feel strongly enough make their reason known during the voting and discussion on the candidate. If the reason is valid enough to withstand a challenge I would suspect it would also be valid enough to influence any voting process we set up. I don't care what voting process we use, I just care that the bylaws are clarified to pick one that can handle one or more candidates. -- Bobby On 11/12/12 5:53 PM, Owen O'Malley omal...@apache.org wrote: Thanks, Nicholas. I think the vote for PMC chair should be a straight majority vote with STV used in the case of more than 2 choices. Using +1 and/or -1's when voting in a multiple choice seems confused and likely to cause more problems than it solves. -- Owen
Re: Heads Up - hadoop-2.0.3 release
+1 on having QJM in hadoop-2.0.3. Any rough estimate when this is targeted for? 2012/11/15 Arun C Murthy a...@hortonworks.com On the heels of the planned 0.23.5 release (thanks Bobby Thomas) I want to rollout a hadoop-2.0.3 release to reflect the growing stability of YARN. I'm hoping we can also release the QJM along-with; hence I'd love to know an ETA - Todd? Sanjay? Suresh? One other thing which would be nice henceforth is to better reflect release content for end-users in release-notes etc.; thus, can I ask committers to start paying closer attention to bug classification such as Blocker/Critical/Major/Minor etc.? This way, as we get closer to stable hadoop-2 releases, we can do a better job communicating content and it's criticality. thanks, Arun -- Have a Nice Day! Lohit
Re: Heads Up - hadoop-2.0.3 release
+1 from me, too. I wanted to let it sit in trunk for a few weeks to see if anyone found issues, but it's now been a bit over a month all the feedback I've gotten so far has been good, tests have been stable, etc. Unless anyone votes otherwise, I'll start backporting the patches into branch-2. Todd On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 12:58 PM, lohit lohit.vijayar...@gmail.com wrote: +1 on having QJM in hadoop-2.0.3. Any rough estimate when this is targeted for? 2012/11/15 Arun C Murthy a...@hortonworks.com On the heels of the planned 0.23.5 release (thanks Bobby Thomas) I want to rollout a hadoop-2.0.3 release to reflect the growing stability of YARN. I'm hoping we can also release the QJM along-with; hence I'd love to know an ETA - Todd? Sanjay? Suresh? One other thing which would be nice henceforth is to better reflect release content for end-users in release-notes etc.; thus, can I ask committers to start paying closer attention to bug classification such as Blocker/Critical/Major/Minor etc.? This way, as we get closer to stable hadoop-2 releases, we can do a better job communicating content and it's criticality. thanks, Arun -- Have a Nice Day! Lohit -- Todd Lipcon Software Engineer, Cloudera
Re: Heads Up - hadoop-2.0.3 release
Here's a git branch with the backported changes in case anyone has time to take a look this weekend: https://github.com/toddlipcon/hadoop-common/tree/branch-2-QJM There were a few conflicts due to patches committed in different orders, and I had to pull in a couple other JIRAs along the way, but it is passing its tests. If it looks good I'll start putting up the patches on JIRA and committing next week. -Todd On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 1:14 PM, Todd Lipcon t...@cloudera.com wrote: +1 from me, too. I wanted to let it sit in trunk for a few weeks to see if anyone found issues, but it's now been a bit over a month all the feedback I've gotten so far has been good, tests have been stable, etc. Unless anyone votes otherwise, I'll start backporting the patches into branch-2. Todd On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 12:58 PM, lohit lohit.vijayar...@gmail.comwrote: +1 on having QJM in hadoop-2.0.3. Any rough estimate when this is targeted for? 2012/11/15 Arun C Murthy a...@hortonworks.com On the heels of the planned 0.23.5 release (thanks Bobby Thomas) I want to rollout a hadoop-2.0.3 release to reflect the growing stability of YARN. I'm hoping we can also release the QJM along-with; hence I'd love to know an ETA - Todd? Sanjay? Suresh? One other thing which would be nice henceforth is to better reflect release content for end-users in release-notes etc.; thus, can I ask committers to start paying closer attention to bug classification such as Blocker/Critical/Major/Minor etc.? This way, as we get closer to stable hadoop-2 releases, we can do a better job communicating content and it's criticality. thanks, Arun -- Have a Nice Day! Lohit -- Todd Lipcon Software Engineer, Cloudera -- Todd Lipcon Software Engineer, Cloudera
Re: Heads Up - hadoop-2.0.3 release
Hi Arun, Given that the 2.0.3 release is intended to reflect the growing stability of YARN, and the QJM work will be included in 2.0.3 which provides a complete HDFS HA solution, I think it's time we consider removing the -alpha label from the release version. My preference would be to remove the label entirely, but we could also perhaps call it -beta or something. Thoughts? -- Aaron T. Myers Software Engineer, Cloudera On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 10:41 PM, Arun C Murthy a...@hortonworks.com wrote: On the heels of the planned 0.23.5 release (thanks Bobby Thomas) I want to rollout a hadoop-2.0.3 release to reflect the growing stability of YARN. I'm hoping we can also release the QJM along-with; hence I'd love to know an ETA - Todd? Sanjay? Suresh? One other thing which would be nice henceforth is to better reflect release content for end-users in release-notes etc.; thus, can I ask committers to start paying closer attention to bug classification such as Blocker/Critical/Major/Minor etc.? This way, as we get closer to stable hadoop-2 releases, we can do a better job communicating content and it's criticality. thanks, Arun
Re: Heads Up - hadoop-2.0.3 release
I would recommend https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MAPREDUCE-2454 for inclusion. - milind --- Milind Bhandarkar Chief Scientist, Machine Learning Platforms, Greenplum, A Division of EMC +1-650-523-3858 (W) +1-408-666-8483 (C) On 11/16/12 3:38 PM, Aaron T. Myers a...@cloudera.com wrote: Hi Arun, Given that the 2.0.3 release is intended to reflect the growing stability of YARN, and the QJM work will be included in 2.0.3 which provides a complete HDFS HA solution, I think it's time we consider removing the -alpha label from the release version. My preference would be to remove the label entirely, but we could also perhaps call it -beta or something. Thoughts? -- Aaron T. Myers Software Engineer, Cloudera On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 10:41 PM, Arun C Murthy a...@hortonworks.com wrote: On the heels of the planned 0.23.5 release (thanks Bobby Thomas) I want to rollout a hadoop-2.0.3 release to reflect the growing stability of YARN. I'm hoping we can also release the QJM along-with; hence I'd love to know an ETA - Todd? Sanjay? Suresh? One other thing which would be nice henceforth is to better reflect release content for end-users in release-notes etc.; thus, can I ask committers to start paying closer attention to bug classification such as Blocker/Critical/Major/Minor etc.? This way, as we get closer to stable hadoop-2 releases, we can do a better job communicating content and it's criticality. thanks, Arun
Re: Heads Up - hadoop-2.0.3 release
Agree with Milind, I'd also like to see MAPREDUCE-2454 in it. Thx On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 4:05 PM, Bhandarkar, Milind milind.bhandar...@emc.com wrote: I would recommend https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MAPREDUCE-2454 for inclusion. - milind --- Milind Bhandarkar Chief Scientist, Machine Learning Platforms, Greenplum, A Division of EMC +1-650-523-3858 (W) +1-408-666-8483 (C) On 11/16/12 3:38 PM, Aaron T. Myers a...@cloudera.com wrote: Hi Arun, Given that the 2.0.3 release is intended to reflect the growing stability of YARN, and the QJM work will be included in 2.0.3 which provides a complete HDFS HA solution, I think it's time we consider removing the -alpha label from the release version. My preference would be to remove the label entirely, but we could also perhaps call it -beta or something. Thoughts? -- Aaron T. Myers Software Engineer, Cloudera On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 10:41 PM, Arun C Murthy a...@hortonworks.com wrote: On the heels of the planned 0.23.5 release (thanks Bobby Thomas) I want to rollout a hadoop-2.0.3 release to reflect the growing stability of YARN. I'm hoping we can also release the QJM along-with; hence I'd love to know an ETA - Todd? Sanjay? Suresh? One other thing which would be nice henceforth is to better reflect release content for end-users in release-notes etc.; thus, can I ask committers to start paying closer attention to bug classification such as Blocker/Critical/Major/Minor etc.? This way, as we get closer to stable hadoop-2 releases, we can do a better job communicating content and it's criticality. thanks, Arun -- Alejandro
Re: Heads Up - hadoop-2.0.3 release
On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 3:38 PM, Aaron T. Myers a...@cloudera.com wrote: Hi Arun, Given that the 2.0.3 release is intended to reflect the growing stability of YARN, and the QJM work will be included in 2.0.3 which provides a complete HDFS HA solution, I think it's time we consider removing the -alpha label from the release version. My preference would be to remove the label entirely, but we could also perhaps call it -beta or something. Thoughts? I think it fine after two minor releases undoing the '-alpha' suffix. If folks insist we next go to '-beta', I'd hope we'd travel all remaining 22 letters of the greek alphabet before we 2.0.x. St.Ack
