+1 (binding)
I’ve participated in the review of ATSv2 security related patch.
JIan
> On Aug 28, 2017, at 1:39 AM, Rohith Sharma K S
> wrote:
>
> +1 (binding)
>
> Thank you very much for the great team work!
>
> Built from source and deployed in secured cluster. The below are the test
> resu
On 29 August 2017 at 06:24, Andrew Wang wrote:
> So far I've seen no -1's to the branching proposal, so I plan to execute
> this tomorrow unless there's further feedback.
>
For on going branch merge threads i.e TSv2, voting will be closing
tomorrow. Does it end up in merging into trunk(3.1.0-SNAP
So far I've seen no -1's to the branching proposal, so I plan to execute
this tomorrow unless there's further feedback.
Regarding the above discussion, I think Jason and I have essentially the
same opinion.
I hope that keeping trunk a release branch means a higher bar for merges
and code review i
On Mon, Aug 28, 2017, at 14:22, Allen Wittenauer wrote:
>
> > On Aug 28, 2017, at 12:41 PM, Jason Lowe wrote:
> >
> > I think this gets back to the "if it's worth committing" part.
>
> This brings us back to my original question:
>
> "Doesn't this place an undue burden on the contr
> On Aug 28, 2017, at 12:41 PM, Jason Lowe wrote:
>
> I think this gets back to the "if it's worth committing" part.
This brings us back to my original question:
"Doesn't this place an undue burden on the contributor with the first
incompatible patch to prove worthiness? What
+1 to Andrew’s proposal for 3.x releases.
We had fairly elaborate threads on this branching & compatibility topic before.
One of them’s here: [1]
+1 to what Jason said.
(a) Incompatible changes are not to be treated lightly. We need to stop
breaking stuff and ‘just dump it on trunk'.
(b) Maj
On Mon, Aug 28, 2017, at 09:58, Allen Wittenauer wrote:
>
> > On Aug 25, 2017, at 1:23 PM, Jason Lowe wrote:
> >
> > Allen Wittenauer wrote:
> >
> > > Doesn't this place an undue burden on the contributor with the first
> > > incompatible patch to prove worthiness? What happens if it is deci
Allen Wittenauer wrote:
> > On Aug 25, 2017, at 1:23 PM, Jason Lowe wrote:
> >
> > Allen Wittenauer wrote:
> >
> > > Doesn't this place an undue burden on the contributor with the first
> incompatible patch to prove worthiness? What happens if it is decided that
> it's not good enough?
> >
> >
> On Aug 25, 2017, at 1:23 PM, Jason Lowe wrote:
>
> Allen Wittenauer wrote:
>
> > Doesn't this place an undue burden on the contributor with the first
> > incompatible patch to prove worthiness? What happens if it is decided that
> > it's not good enough?
>
> It is a burden for that first
For more details, see
https://builds.apache.org/job/hadoop-qbt-trunk-java8-linux-x86/506/
[Aug 27, 2017 10:19:55 PM] (liuml07) MAPREDUCE-6945. TestMapFileOutputFormat
missing @after annotation.
-1 overall
The following subsystems voted -1:
findbugs unit
The following subsystems voted
+1 (binding)
Thank you very much for the great team work!
Built from source and deployed in secured cluster. The below are the test
result.
Deployment :
Standard hadoop security deployment authentication and authorization as
well.
Branch-2 Hadoop and Hbase security cluster.
Branch-3
11 matches
Mail list logo
