Not to throw fuel on the fire so to say, nor to make any statement about
not wanting anybody to spend time on JDK 9 or 10, but our general thinking
at Twitter is that we'll skip over these versions as well and move straight
to JDK 11 as well.
That said, this is still a bit of an aspiration for us
Sorry for jumping in late into the fray of this discussion.
It seems Ozone is a large feature. I appreciate the development effort and
the desire to get this into the hands of users.
I understand the need to iterate quickly and to reduce overhead for
development.
I also agree that Hadoop can
That makes sense to me, after merge to trunk and branch 2, it probably
makes sense to create a new jira and feature branch for atsv2 additional
feature dev.
Cheers,
Joep
On Fri, Aug 25, 2017 at 3:05 PM, Vrushali C wrote:
> Hi Subru,
>
> Thanks for your vote and your
+1 (non-binding) for the merge
@Vinod I hope that means a +1 from you as well!
Cheers,
Joep
On Tue, Aug 22, 2017 at 11:15 AM, Vinod Kumar Vavilapalli <
vino...@apache.org> wrote:
> Such a great community effort - hats off, team!
>
> Thanks
> +Vinod
>
> > On Aug 21, 2017, at 11:32 PM, Vrushali
Thanks Vrushali for being entirely open as to the current status of ATSv2.
I appreciate that we want to ensure things are tested at scale, and as you
said we are working on that right now on our clusters.
We have tested the feature to demonstrate it works at what we consider
moderate scale.
I
Uhm, there is an IRC channel?!?
Joep
On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 3:13 PM, Sangjin Lee wrote:
> I seldom check out IRC (as my experience was the same). I'm OK with
> retiring it if no committers are around.
>
> On a related note, I know Tsuyoshi set up a slack channel for the
>
There seems to be a gap in our release notes publishing.
Up to
http://hadoop.apache.org/docs/r2.4.1/
The release notes were updated for each release.
Then these three are the same:
https://hadoop.apache.org/docs/r2.5.2/
http://hadoop.apache.org/docs/r2.6.0/index.html
Hi Vinod,
We've gone through the various lists of upstream jiras and wanted to
provide our take on what we'd like to see in 2.6.1 release.
In addition, we have ~58 jiras (some a group of work such as DN maintenance
state) that we already have in production
in a pre-2.6 release. I've gone through
Here are some of our thought on the discussions of the past few days with
respect to backwards compatibility.
In general at Twitter we're not necessarily against backwards incompatible
changes per se.
*It depends on the Return on Pain. While it is hard to quantify the
returns in the
However painful protobuf version changes are at build time for Hadoop
developers, at runtime with multiple clusters and many Hadoop users this is
a total nightmare.
Even upgrading clusters from one protobuf version to the next is going to
be very difficult. The same users will run jobs on, and/or
Thanks for the hadoop-2.0.5-alpha RC0 Cos!
+1 (non-binding) in principle for a 2.0.5-alpha release.
Similar to Alejandro I see that:
/hadoop-2.0.5-alpha-src/hadoop-hdfs-project/README.txt (has 2.0.4 release
date missing):
Release 2.0.5-alpha - UNRELEASED
Release 2.0.4-alpha - UNRELEASED
Thanks for fixing Cos.
http://people.apache.org/~cos/hadoop-2.0.5-alpha-rc1/
looks good to me.
+1 (non-binding)
Thanks,
Joep
On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 8:25 PM, Konstantin Boudnik c...@apache.org wrote:
Ok, WRT HDFS-4646 - it is all legit and the code is in branch-2.0.4-alpha
and
later. It
+1 (non-binding)
Joep
On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 9:27 PM, Konstantin Boudnik c...@apache.org wrote:
All,
I have created a release candidate (rc1) for hadoop-2.0.5-alpha that I
would
like to release.
This is a stabilization release that includes fixed for a couple a of
issues
discovered
13 matches
Mail list logo