Re: [Discuss] Hadoop-Ozone repository mailing list configurations

Definitely yes on ‘ozone-issues’. Whether we want to keep ozone-dev and hdfs-dev together or separate, I’m neutral. Thanks, —Matt On Oct 23, 2019, at 2:11 PM, Elek, Marton wrote: Thanks to report this problem Rohith, Yes, it seems to be configured with the wrong mailing list. I think the rig

Re: [DISCUSS] Removing the archiac master branch

+1 Thanks Owen. —Matt — Open Source Technologies @  `This is not a contribution.` On Jun 19, 2020, at 10:19 AM, Owen O'Malley wrote: We unfortunately have a lot of master/slave and whitelist/blacklist terminology usage in Hadoop. It will take a while to fix them all, but one is easy to

[VOTE] Hadoop Release 1.1.1

release 1.1.0, with no backward incompatibilities. I took the opportunity to assure that all branch-1.0 changes are in 1.1.1, and all branch-1.1 changes are in branch-1. The jira database has been made consistent. Please vote. Voting will end on Tuesday 27 Nov., at 2:05pm PST. Thank you, --Matt Foley

[PROPOSAL] introduce Python as build-time and run-time dependency for Hadoop and throughout Hadoop stack

This discussion started in HADOOP-8924 , where it was proposed to replace the build-time utility "saveVersion.sh" with a python script. This would require Python as a build-time dependency. Here's the background: Those of us involved in the bran

Re: [PROPOSAL] introduce Python as build-time and run-time dependency for Hadoop and throughout Hadoop stack

Hi Alejandro, For build-time issues in branch-2 and beyond, this may make sense (although I'm concerned about obscuring functionality in a way that only maven experts will be able to understand). In the particular case of saveVersion.sh, I'd be happy to see it done automatically by the build tools

Re: [PROPOSAL] introduce Python as build-time and run-time dependency for Hadoop and throughout Hadoop stack

en-plugin to do that? > > > > Colin already has something to simplify all the cmake calls from the > builds > > using a maven-plugin (https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HADOOP-8887) > > > > We could do the same with protoc, thus simplifying the POMs. > > &g

[VOTE] introduce Python as build-time and run-time dependency for Hadoop and throughout Hadoop stack

For discussion, please see previous thread "[PROPOSAL] introduce Python as build-time and run-time dependency for Hadoop and throughout Hadoop stack". This vote consists of three separate items: 1. Contributors shall be allowed to use Python as a platform-independent scripting language for build-

Re: [PROPOSAL] introduce Python as build-time and run-time dependency for Hadoop and throughout Hadoop stack

Please see new [VOTE] thread. On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 3:40 PM, Radim Kolar wrote: > discussion seems to ended, lets start vote. >

Re: [VOTE] Hadoop Release 1.1.1

Hey all, Please vote! Voting is supposed to close tomorrow afternoon. Thanks, --Matt On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 2:07 PM, Matt Foley wrote: > Hello, > Hadoop-1.1.1-rc0 is now available for evaluation and vote: > http://people.apache.org/~mattf/hadoop-1.1.1-rc0/ > or in the Nexu

Re: [VOTE] Hadoop Release 1.1.1

DOOP-9098. > > Cheers, > Tom > > On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 10:07 PM, Matt Foley wrote: > > Hello, > > Hadoop-1.1.1-rc0 is now available for evaluation and vote: > > http://people.apache.org/~mattf/hadoop-1.1.1-rc0/ > > or in the Nexus repository. > &g

Re: [VOTE] Hadoop Release 1.1.1

and trunk with the fixes, intensively, > since they were merged and have seen no problems. > > Sorry for not noticing this earlier in the VOTE. > > -andy > > On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 9:45 AM, Matt Foley > wrote: > > Thanks for noticing these, Tom. > > --Matt > &

Re: [VOTE] introduce Python as build-time and run-time dependency for Hadoop and throughout Hadoop stack

t at the moment, and if it comes it > would be in the form of an AM, which I'd argue it should leave outside of > Hadoop) > > Thx > > > On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 1:16 PM, Giridharan Kesavan < > gkesa...@hortonworks.com> wrote: > > > +1, +1, +1 > > > &

Re: [VOTE] introduce Python as build-time and run-time dependency for Hadoop and throughout Hadoop stack

reated -ie launcher scripts) > to Phyton? > * What else in the current build, besides saveVersion.sh, you see as > candidate to be migrated to Phyton? > * How are you planning to define what Phyton modules can be used? Will > developers have to install them manually? > > Cheer

Re: [VOTE] introduce Python as build-time and run-time dependency for Hadoop and throughout Hadoop stack

ore voting. > > > > * Phyton as runtime requirement. Are you planing to migrate all BASH > > scripts provided by Hadoop (or dynamically created -ie launcher scripts) > > to Phyton? > > * What else in the current build, besides saveVersion.sh, you see as > > candidate to

Re: [VOTE] introduce Python as build-time and run-time dependency for Hadoop and throughout Hadoop stack

I do not agree that such issues are "code changes"; it relates to the tools we depend on to make code changes, which is clearly qualitatively different. --Matt On Mon, Dec 3, 2012 at 10:37 AM, Doug Cutting wrote: > On Sat, Nov 24, 2012 at 12:13 PM, Matt Foley wrote: > > Vot

Re: [VOTE] introduce Python as build-time and run-time dependency for Hadoop and throughout Hadoop stack

mean the Hadoop bylaws have to change? Thanks, --Matt On Mon, Dec 3, 2012 at 11:37 AM, Doug Cutting wrote: > On Mon, Dec 3, 2012 at 11:21 AM, Matt Foley > wrote: > > It is intended to be a "technical discussion", in the sense of the bylaws > > statement (in section

Re: [VOTE] introduce Python as build-time and run-time dependency for Hadoop and throughout Hadoop stack

rm-specific languages for no reason. --Matt On Mon, Dec 3, 2012 at 3:57 PM, Doug Cutting wrote: > On Mon, Dec 3, 2012 at 2:08 PM, Matt Foley wrote: > > The apache voting process contradicts the Hadoop bylaws: > > http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html says that only PMC members

Re: [VOTE] introduce Python as build-time and run-time dependency for Hadoop and throughout Hadoop stack

scripts have different rules than other kinds of > software, but I don't yet see the rationale for such a change. > > Doug > > On Mon, Dec 3, 2012 at 5:22 PM, Matt Foley wrote: > > No, but it speaks to whether the Hadoop bylaws can extend the Apache > voting > > p

Re: [VOTE] introduce Python as build-time and run-time dependency for Hadoop and throughout Hadoop stack

Please close HADOOP-9073 as "will not fix", citing this discussion. I'm -1 on groovy in maven. That's worse, not better. Let it sit for a while and let people propose simplifications of the script situation. Thanks, --Matt On Tue, Dec 4, 2012 at 11:41 AM, Radim Kolar wrote: > result of vote

Re: [VOTE] introduce Python as build-time and run-time dependency for Hadoop and throughout Hadoop stack

if cmake works in windows, i assume hadoop-8887 would be almost there. > > this would leave the tar stitching, which is done as script to handle SO > symlinks. though i have and idea on how we could take care of it. > > i'll be creating a jira momentarily. > > thx >

Preparing 1.1.2-rc0, due to HADOOP-9115

Hi, sorry for the thrash, but further testing in a whole-stack situation with Hive over Hadoop-1.1.1, exposed bug HADOOP-9115, "Deadlock in configuration when writing configuration to hdfs". This bug did not previously manifest during Hadoop-1.1.1

Re: [VOTE] Hadoop Release 1.1.1

Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 3:02 PM, Andy Isaacson wrote: > > > >> On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 2:52 PM, Matt Foley wrote: > >> > Andy, please commit MAPREDUCE-2374 to branch-1 and branch-1.1. That > way > >> it > >> > will be picked up by anyone who takes s

[VOTE] Hadoop 1.1.2-rc4 release candidate vote

A new build of Hadoop-1.1.2 is available at http://people.apache.org/~mattf/hadoop-1.1.2-rc4/ or in SVN at http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/hadoop/common/tags/release-1.1.2-rc4/ or in the Maven repo. This candidate for a stabilization release of the Hadoop-1.1 branch has 23 patches and several cleanup

Re: [VOTE] Hadoop 1.1.2-rc4 release candidate vote

ckpoint exception causes fatal damage to fsimage? I have uploaded a > patch, and I expect to receive a code review in the next day or two. > > Thank you, > --Chris > > > On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 3:32 PM, Matt Foley > wrote: > > > A new build of Hadoop-1.1.2 is avail

Re: [VOTE] Hadoop 1.1.2-rc4 release candidate vote

, Jan 29, 2013 at 9:47 PM, Chris Nauroth wrote: > HDFS-4423 has been committed to branch-1. Thank you, Matt. > > --Chris > > > On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 11:57 AM, Matt Foley > wrote: > > > Hi Chris, > > Okay, please get it in as soon as possible, and I'll respi

Re: [VOTE] Hadoop 1.1.2-rc4 release candidate vote

Sorry, should have changed the subject line to "rc5". Please do not respond to this thread. See the next message. --Matt On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 2:55 PM, Matt Foley wrote: > Hadoop-1.1.2-rc4 is withdrawn. > > Hadoop-1.1.2-rc5 is available at > http://people.apache.org/~

[VOTE] Hadoop 1.1.2-rc5 release candidate vote

Feb, at 3:00pm PST. Thanks, --Matt On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 9:47 PM, Chris Nauroth wrote: HDFS-4423 has been committed to branch-1. Thank you, Matt. > > --Chris > > > On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 11:57 AM, Matt Foley > wrote: > > > Hi Chris, > > Okay, please get it

[PROPOSAL] Hadoop branch-1.2

Hi, this weekend I propose to create a branch-1.2 from current branch-1, and create a first release candidate. There's a ton of new stuff since 1.1, and it will probably need stabilization, but that is best done in the context of a release candidate. Any objections? Any must-have items for 1.2 t

Re: [VOTE] Hadoop 1.1.2-rc5 release candidate vote

it worked. Since that change touched > checkpointing, I also verified that the 2NN could complete a successful > checkpoint. > > I'll also verify the PGP signature once I track down the public key that > was used for signing. > > Thank you, > --Chris >

Re: [VOTE] Hadoop 1.1.2-rc5 release candidate vote

t; > source tarball. It's useful to have these artifacts available, but > > technically we're supposed to be approving source code, not builds... > > -C > > > > On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 7:13 PM, Matt Foley wrote: > > > (resending with modified Subject

Re: [VOTE] Hadoop 1.1.2-rc5 release candidate vote

dir to be complete so you can build from > there. Or, we should have another SRC TARBALL as we do have in Hadoop2 > which is nothing but the whole (buildable) source. > > Cheers > > > On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 1:46 PM, Matt Foley wrote: > > > >> official release artifact

Re: [VOTE] Hadoop 1.1.2-rc5 release candidate vote

REMINDER: VOTING CLOSES TONIGHT AT 10PM. Happy St. Valentine's Day :-) --Matt On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 2:56 PM, Matt Foley wrote: > Hi, I peeled open the non-binary tarball (http://people.apache.org/~ > mattf/hadoop-1.1.2-rc5/hadoop-1.1.2.tar.gz), and besides the complete > src/

Re: [VOTE] Hadoop 1.1.2-rc5 release candidate vote

, Arun C Murthy wrote: > +1 (binding) > > Downloaded bits, verified sigs and ran examples on a single-node cluster. > > Arun > > On Feb 14, 2013, at 2:57 PM, Matt Foley wrote: > > > REMINDER: VOTING CLOSES TONIGHT AT 10PM. > > Happy St. Valentine's Day :-)

Fwd: [Vote] Merge branch-trunk-win to trunk

+1 (binding) Apache is supposed to be about the community. We have here a community of developers, who have actively and openly worked to add a major improvement to Hadoop: the ability to work cross-platform. Furthermore, the size of the substantive part of the needed patch is only about 1500 li

Re: [Vote] Merge branch-trunk-win to trunk

Konstantin, I would like to explore what it would take to remove this perceived impediment -- although I reserve the right to argue that this is not pre-requisite to merging the cross-platform support patch. If we implemented full "test-patch" support for Windows on trunk, would that fulfill both

Re: [Vote] Merge branch-trunk-win to trunk

7:32 PM, Konstantin Shvachko wrote: > Hi Matt, > > On Sat, Mar 2, 2013 at 12:32 PM, Matt Foley > wrote: > > Konstantin, > > I would like to explore what it would take to remove this perceived > > impediment -- > > Glad you decided to explore. Thank you. > >

Re: [Vote] Merge branch-trunk-win to trunk

sed work sounds like it will satisfy the requirements. Thank you, --Matt On Sun, Mar 3, 2013 at 12:16 PM, Konstantin Shvachko wrote: > Didn't I explain in details what I am asking for? > > Thanks, > --Konst > > On Sun, Mar 3, 2013 at 11:08 AM, Matt Foley > wrote: > > H

Re: [Vote] Merge branch-trunk-win to trunk

Thanks. I agree Windows -1's in test-patch should not block commits. --Matt On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 2:30 PM, Konstantin Shvachko wrote: > On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 12:22 PM, Matt Foley > wrote: > > Konstantine, you have voted -1, and stated some requirements before > you

Re: [Vote] Merge branch-trunk-win to trunk

e. > > I am glad we agreed. > Having Jira to track the CI effort is a good idea. > > Thanks, > --Konstantin > > On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 3:29 PM, Matt Foley wrote: > > Thanks. I agree Windows -1's in test-patch should not block commits. > > > >

Re: [Vote] Merge branch-trunk-win to trunk

Added to the Jira to modify http://wiki.apache.org/hadoop/HowToContribute to document this decision. On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 5:42 PM, Harsh J wrote: > Thanks Suresh. Regarding where; we can state it on > http://wiki.apache.org/hadoop/HowToContribute in the test-patch > section perhaps. > > +1 on

Re: [PROPOSAL] Hadoop branch-1.2

dir,dir/subdir) can lose all data in the source > directory > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HADOOP-9261 > > I think that should be one to pick up -it and the extended test are still > be reviewed > > On 4 February 2013 12:39, Matt Foley wrote: > > > H

Re: [PROPOSAL] Hadoop branch-1.2

e know if this is correct. In meantime, I'm going to make the branch. We'll just have to commit to both branch-1 and branch-1.2. Thanks, --Matt On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 1:29 AM, Steve Loughran wrote: > On 6 March 2013 23:17, Matt Foley wrote: > > > Hi, I got stuck in other work

[VOTE] Plan to create release candidate Monday 3/18

Hi all, I have created branch-1.2 from branch-1, and propose to cut the first release candidate for 1.2.0 on Monday 3/18 (a week from tomorrow), or as soon thereafter as I can achieve a stable build. Between 1.1.2 and the current 1.2.0, there are 176 patches!! Draft release notes are available at

Re: [VOTE] Plan to create release candidate Monday 3/18

On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 9:53 PM, Robert Evans wrote: > > > +1 > > > > On 3/10/13 10:38 PM, "Matt Foley" wrote: > > > > >Hi all, > > >I have created branch-1.2 from branch-1, and propose to cut the first > > >release candidate for 1.2.

[VOTE] Hadoop release candidate 1.2.0-rc1

Hi all, I have posted the signed tarballs for Hadoop 1.2.0-rc1 at http://people.apache.org/~mattf/hadoop-1.2.0-rc1/ Release notes are at: releasenotes_1.2.0-rc1.html I'm having a little trouble with Nexus (it seems to ha

Re: [VOTE] Hadoop release candidate 1.2.0-rc1

Friends, Nexus issues are resolved, and the Nexus staging repository for Hadoop 1.2.0-rc1 properly uploaded. Thanks for your patience. --Matt On Mon, May 6, 2013 at 11:11 AM, Matt Foley wrote: > Hi all, > I have posted the signed tarballs for Hadoop 1.2.0-rc1 at > http://people.a

Re: [VOTE] Hadoop release candidate 1.2.0-rc1

Hi all, just a reminder this vote is underway and will close Monday 11:30am. Please review and vote! Thanks, --Matt On Mon, May 6, 2013 at 11:36 AM, Matt Foley wrote: > Friends, > Nexus issues are resolved, and the Nexus staging repository for Hadoop > 1.2.0-rc1 properly uploaded. T

Re: [VOTE] Hadoop release candidate 1.2.0-rc1

PM, Jason Lowe wrote: > Matt, would you consider adding HADOOP-9504 to the release? Some groups > using HBase have been bitten by this bug and would like to see it in a 1.x > release. > > Jason > > > On 05/10/2013 11:44 AM, Matt Foley wrote: > >> Hi all, >&g

Re: [VOTE] Hadoop release candidate 1.2.0-rc1

> > but hadoop-1.2.0-bin.tar.gz is missing the source code and can't be built. > -C > > On Mon, May 6, 2013 at 11:11 AM, Matt Foley wrote: > > Hi all, > > I have posted the signed tarballs for Hadoop 1.2.0-rc1 at > > http://people.apache.org/~mattf/hadoop-1.2.0-rc1

Re: [VOTE] Hadoop release candidate 1.2.0-rc1

n Mon, May 13, 2013 at 1:32 PM, Matt Foley wrote: > Hi Chris, > Unless I screwed up my build, hadoop-1.2.0.tar.gz includes the built > artifacts as well as full buildable source and docs. > Hadoop-1.2.0-bin.tar.gz is intended to contain only the built artifacts > ("binaries")

Re: [VOTE] Hadoop release candidate 1.2.0-rc1

le to > modify what we distribute. I can try to track down a reference, but > I'm pretty sure on this one... source-only is OK. Some have argued > it's the only acceptable form. -C > > On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 1:36 PM, Matt Foley wrote: > > The vote passed and we hav

Re: [VOTE] Hadoop release candidate 1.2.0-rc1

PMC is allowed to approve. Elsewhere, > there's clarification that the prohibition is against binaries for > which we don't also distribute source, so (AFAICT) distributing > third-party jars is also not kosher. I'll ask for clarification. -C > > On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 2

Re: [VOTE] Hadoop release candidate 1.2.0-rc1

t; > On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 5:35 PM, Matt Foley > wrote: > > Thanks for the reference. > > > > Roy's email clearly says that the thing to be voted on should be source > > only. This email is in the context of a discussion about a release > > candidate th

Re: [VOTE] - Release 2.0.5-beta

+1 (binding). I think it's important to maintain the release continuity, otherwise we could end up with the 0.20.2 / 0.20.200 problem all over again (parallel "stable" dev tracks without a parent-child relationship to each other, ie with disjoint subsets of functionality). I consider achieving a

Re: [VOTE] - Release 2.0.5-beta

>> Arun, not sure whether your "Yes to all" already covered this, but I'd like >> to throw in support for the compatibility guidelines being a blocker. +1 to that. Definitely an overriding concern for me. On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 1:25 PM, Sandy Ryza wrote: > +1 (non-binding) > > Agreed with Bi

Re: [VOTE] - Release 2.0.5-beta

>> lets fork this thread into the appropriate ML and discuss the practical, achievable >> steps that can be included into the release criteria of Hadoop 2.0.5-beta Seems to me common-dev is the appropriate ML, and Arun has invited Jiras to include. Open a Jira with your suggested list, and we carr

Re: [VOTE] - Release 2.0.5-beta

Roman, what is your model for how test results from Bigtop should feed back into Hadoop-2 development? With the understanding that (a) software does have bugs, and (b) you're not going to get an SLA on community-sponsored software, what are your ideas for how to close the loop better? Would "CI" r

Re: [VOTE] - Release 2.0.5-beta

I'm actually drafting such a proposal. Will open the discussion as a [PROPOSAL] in general@ --Matt On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 4:44 PM, Arun C Murthy wrote: > > On May 15, 2013, at 3:27 PM, Chris Douglas wrote: > > > +1 (binding) on the proposal. > > > > However, the value we get from these "relea

[PROPOSAL] change in bylaws to remove Release Plan vote

Hi all, This has been a side topic in several email threads recently. Currently we have an ambiguity. We have a tradition in the dev community that any committer can create a branch, and propose release candidates from it. Yet the Hadoop bylaws say that releases have to be planned in advance, th

Re: [VOTE] - Release 2.0.5-beta

I've now started a separate discussion thread in common-dev@, titled "[PROPOSAL] change in bylaws to remove Release Plan vote". If it achieves consensus, I'll put it to a vote to so change the bylaws. Best, --Matt On Sat, May 18, 2013 at 4:22 PM, Chris Douglas wrote: > The "release plan" vote

Re: [PROPOSAL] change in bylaws to remove Release Plan vote

wrote: > > +1 (non-binding) > > > > > > On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 4:13 PM, Jitendra Pandey > > wrote: > > > >> +1 > >> > >> > >> On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 4:02 PM, Eli Collins wrote: > >> > >> > +1 thanks Matt. &g

Re: [PROPOSAL] change in bylaws to remove Release Plan vote

> On May 21, 2013, at 6:58 PM, "Matt Foley" wrote: > > > 13/14 +1's. I think that constitutes consensus. Moving this to a VOTE > > thread. Please repeat your +1s :-) > > Cheers, > > --Matt > > > > > > On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 5:33 PM, M

[VOTE] change in bylaws to remove Release Plan vote

This was previously discussed in the thread "[PROPOSAL] change in bylaws to remove Release Plan vote". 13 people explicitly cast "+1"s in that thread. Absent objection I will count those as votes without requiring them to (re-)respond to this VOTE thread. The following change is proposed in the

Re: [PROPOSAL] change in bylaws to remove Release Plan vote

Hi Jagane, since you did not explicitly cast a -1 or other numerical vote, please if you wish go ahead and cast a vote in the VOTE thread. Best regards, --Matt On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 3:47 PM, Jagane Sundar wrote: > I see one significant benefit to having Release Plan votes: Fewer releases > wi

Re: [VOTE] change in bylaws to remove Release Plan vote

Forgot to say: Vote will close one week after it started, at 7:05pm PDT on Tuesday 28 May. Thanks, --Matt On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 7:03 PM, Matt Foley wrote: > This was previously discussed in the thread "[PROPOSAL] change in bylaws > to remove Release Plan vote". 13 people exp

Re: [PROPOSAL] change in bylaws to remove Release Plan vote

ranches and forks. > > I like the second change defining the role of RM. > Very well formulated, thanks Matt. > > --Konstantin > > > On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 7:01 PM, Matt Foley wrote: > >> Ok, if no one complains I will phrase the vote to include +1's

Re: [PROPOSAL] change in bylaws to remove Release Plan vote

Hi Jagane, My response to your concerns is that I hope the PMC will have enough wisdom not to pass votes for a confusing number of releases -- if only to avoid the kind of fragmentation you point out could happen. To date, however, this does not seem to have been a major problem in our community.

[VOTE Results] change in bylaws to remove Release Plan vote

The vote closed last night, with very positive results: +1 binding: 14 +1 non-binding: 12 -1 or 0: none I'll work with Chris to get the Bylaws doc changed, but the change is effective as of 7:05pm PDT May 28, 2013. Many thanks, --Matt On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 2:04 AM, Matt Foley

[RELEASE PLAN] Hadoop 1.2.1 stabilization RC on about 6/7

Colleagues, Next weekend, starting the evening of Friday 7 June, a week from tomorrow, I plan to cut a hadoop-1.2.1-rc0 from the branch-1.2 branch. This is intended to be a stabilization release of 1.2. I request that major new back-ports, or any change with significant risk, be put in branch-1 f

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Hadoop 2.0.4.1-alpha

Hi Cos, I would also request that you renumber the release candidate to just three-numbers, hence "2.0.5-alpha". Arun, are you willing to start the 2.1.x name-space for your next release, so that 2.0.x-alpha can become an intermediate stabilization branch as Cos and Konst want? I just think that

status of Hadoop release candidate 1.2.1-rc0

The proposed RC-0 for Hadoop 1.2.1 has been tagged, and performs satisfactorily wrt Unit Tests. However, my build environment has been bolluxed up by changes in hardware, and I am still having problems building the native-build po

[VOTE] Hadoop 1.2.1 release candidate 0 -- stable release

Colleagues, This is a stabilization release of the Hadoop-1.2 codeline. It has 18 patches over the 1.2.0 release, which may be seen in the Release Notes. Please vote on two items: a) accepting this as an Apache Hadoop relea

Re: [VOTE] Hadoop 1.2.1 release candidate 0 -- stable release

al node cluster. > > > On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 2:08 PM, Matt Foley wrote: > >> Colleagues, >> This is a stabilization release of the Hadoop-1.2 codeline. It has 18 >> patches over the 1.2.0 release, which may be seen in the Release >> Notes< >> http://peopl

[ANNOUNCE] Hadoop version 1.2.1 (stable) released

I'm happy to announce that Hadoop version 1.2.1 has passed its release vote and is now available. It has 18 bug fixes and patches over the previous 1.2.0 release; please see Hadoop 1.2.1 Release Notesfor details. This release of Hadoop-1.2 i

Re: [ANNOUNCE] Hadoop version 1.2.1 (stable) released

>> which will include Windows native compatibility. My apologies, this was incorrect. Windows has only been integrated to trunk and branch-2.1. Thanks, --Matt On Sun, Aug 4, 2013 at 2:08 PM, Matt Foley wrote: > I'm happy to announce that Hadoop version 1.2.1 has passed its

Re: [ANNOUNCE] Hadoop version 1.2.1 (stable) released

ty, 1.2.1 will of course remain as the "stable" version. --Matt On Mon, Aug 5, 2013 at 9:43 AM, Chris K Wensel wrote: > any particular reason the 1.1.2 releases were pulled from the mirrors (so > quickly)? > > On Aug 4, 2013, at 2:08 PM, Matt Foley wrote: > > > I&

Re: [ANNOUNCE] Hadoop version 1.2.1 (stable) released

t. too > bad there isn't some 'stable' link that itself is updated to the actual > stable release. > > we do this now with all of the cascading artifacts. it prevents automated > things from breaking immediately. > > http://files.cascading.org/sdk/2.1/latest.txt &

Re: Hadoop Community Sync Up Schedule

Hi Wangda, thanks for this. A question about the schedule correction: > > 1) In the proposal, repeats are not properly. (I used bi-weekly instead of > 2nd/4th week as repeat frequency). I'd like to fix the frequency on Thu and > it will take effect starting next week. I understand that “bi-weekly

Re: Hadoop Community Sync Up Schedule

Wangda and Eric, We can express the intent, I think, by scheduling two recurring meetings: - monthly, on the 2nd Wednesday, and - monthly, on the 4th Wednesday. This is pretty easy to understand, and not too onerous to maintain. But I’m okay with simple bi-weekly too. I’m neutral on 10 vs 11am, P

Re: Hadoop storage community online sync

+1 for publishing notes. Thanks! On Aug 21, 2019, at 4:16 PM, Aaron Fabbri wrote: Thank you Wei-Chiu for organizing this and sending out notes! On Wed, Aug 21, 2019 at 1:10 PM Wei-Chiu Chuang mailto:weic...@apache.org>> wrote: > We had a great turnout today, thanks to Konstantin for leading t

Re: Hadoop Storage online sync in an hour

Sorry I won’t be able to come today; a work meeting interferes. —Matt On Sep 4, 2019, at 9:10 AM, Wei-Chiu Chuang wrote: It's a short week so I didn't set up a predefined topic to discuss. What should we be discussing? How about Erasure Coding? I'm starting to see tricky EC bug reports coming i

Re: Compile 64bit native Hadoop 3.2.0 binaries for AIX 7.1

Hi Candy, It’s possible that you’ve already tried the below, but one can’t tell from your message, so here goes: 1. Presumably you’ve read https://hadoop.apache.org/docs/r3.2.0/hadoop-project-dist/hadoop-common/NativeLibraries.html Admittedly it doesn’t answer your question, but it does point ou

Re: Review Request: HADOOP-7328. Improve the SerializationFactory functions.

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/884/#review817 --- Sorry if this is out of context, but is it really best to also return a

Re: yahoo.net build machines

The normal build machines are still down, but it is my understanding there is a "critical" priority (highest priority) ticket active and the yahoo infrastructure team is working to resolve it as fast as possible. I don't have further information about what the problem is. However, Giri worked har

Re: [VOTE] Release 0.20.204.0-rc0

Hi, Four critical patches have been applied to 0.20-security-204, and release candidate 0.20.204-rc1 is now ready for evaluation. The signed release is available at http://people.apache.org/~mattf/hadoop-0.20.204-rc1/ A successful build and test under Jenkins may be examined at https://builds.apach

Re: [VOTE] Release 0.20.204.0-rc0

mpty. (suresh) (Handled by HDFS-1824) HDFS-2218. Disable TestHdfsProxy.testHdfsProxyInterface in automated test suite for 0.20-security-204 release. (Matt Foley) (Not a problem in trunk) HDFS-2044. TestQueueProcessingStatistics failing automatic test due to timing issues. (mattf) (not a problem in

Re: 0.22 branch not part of Jenkins CI ?

I believe the usual practice should be: 1. The trunk patch (if applicable) must pass automated Jenkins testing for trunk CI build, and code review. 2. The branch patch should have "ant -Dpatch.file= test-patch" run against it in the developer's build environment for the branch, and the passing res

Re: Sustaining Releases (Was: [VOTE] Release 0.20.204.0-rc0)

Per Arun's message below, I edited the "Sustaining Release" section of http://wiki.apache.org/hadoop/Roadmap to incorporate these items. Feedback welcome. --Matt On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 3:39 PM, Eli Collins wrote: > On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 2:02 PM, Arun C Murthy wrote: > > On Aug 2, 2011, at 4:2

[PROPOSAL] Two Jira infrastructure additions to support sustaining bug fixes

Hi all, for better or worse, the Hadoop community works in multiple branches. We have to do sustaining work on 0.20, even while we hope that 0.23 will finally replace it. Even after that happens, we will then need to do sustaining releases on 0.23 while future development goes into 0.24 or 0.25,

Re: [PROPOSAL] Two Jira infrastructure additions to support sustaining bug fixes

osing out HADOOP-7435. > I'm okay with that. And that change to Jira would probably be hard to get accepted by Infra anyway. I've transcribed the patch naming convention into HADOOP-7435, and assigned it to myself. Thanks, --Matt Thanks, > Eli > > On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at

Re: [PROPOSAL] Two Jira infrastructure additions to support sustaining bug fixes

inding +1 > > Joep > > From: Eli Collins [e...@cloudera.com] > Sent: Thursday, September 15, 2011 2:06 PM > To: common-dev@hadoop.apache.org > Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] Two Jira infrastructure additions to support > sustaining bug fixes > > On Thu, Sep

Re: Unable to Apply Patch

Hi Jon, thanks for your interest in contributing to Hadoop. The Jira you are working on was opened against the HDFS component, but your patch (correctly, I believe) applies against the FS-independent common code. The automated CI machinery that runs test-patch fails in this situation. So I've mo

[VOTE] 0.20.205.0 Release Candidate 1

Good Morning, Release candidate 0.20.205.0-rc1 is available at http://people.apache.org/~mattf/hadoop-0.20.205.0-rc1/ A copy of the Release Notes are provided at the top level of that directory. You are invited to download and evaluate it, then vote on accepting it as a public release. Voting will

Target Versions field vs Fixed Versions field

Hi all, With the help of our friendly Hadoop community Jira admins, we now have a "Target Version/s" field as well as the "Fixed Version/s" field in Jira. Unfortunately if the Target Versions field is empty it doesn't show in the Jira display pages, but if you put target versions in it, it shows up

Re: 0.20.205.0 Release Candidate 1 Testing

Thanks, Scott. We have also found a couple critical issues that should be fixed in 205.0: HDFS-2392 - Dist with hftp is failing again HDFS-2395 - webhdfs api's should return a root element in the json response I am going to spin an RC2 early tomorrow. Does anyone have other issues they c

Re: 0.20.205.0 Release Candidate 1 Testing

Thanks for the good catch! On Thu, Oct 6, 2011 at 8:05 AM, Stack wrote: > Thanks lads, > St.Ack > > On Thu, Oct 6, 2011 at 12:50 AM, Suresh Srinivas > wrote: > > This change has been already committed to 205 and 20-security (thanks > > Aaron). > > > > On Wed, Oct 5, 2011 at 11:09 PM, Stack wro

[VOTE] 0.20.205.0 Release Candidate 2

Many thanks to the community members who tried out RC1, and found several critical or blocker bugs. These have been resolved and I have now posted RC2 at http://people.apache.org/~mattf/hadoop-0.20.205.0-rc2/ A copy of the Release Notes are provided at the top level of that directory. Appropriate a

Re: [VOTE] 0.20.205.0 Release Candidate 2

Hello, The 7-day vote on 0.20.205.0-rc2 is closing tomorrow. Very few people have voted. Please consider trying and voting on this release candidate. Thank you. Best regards, --Matt (RM) On Fri, Oct 7, 2011 at 5:10 PM, Matt Foley wrote: > Many thanks to the community members who tried

Re: [VOTE] 0.20.205.0 Release Candidate 2

/hflush! Thanks to everyone who contributed bug fixes, merges, and improvements. It was truly a community effort. I will announce on general@ as soon as I finish the mechanics of the release. Have a great weekend! --Matt On Fri, Oct 7, 2011 at 5:10 PM, Matt Foley wrote: > Many thanks to

[ANNOUNCEMENT] Hadoop 0.20.205.0 release

On Friday 14 Oct, the Hadoop community voted ten to zero (including four PMC members voting in favor) to accept the release of Hadoop 0.20.205.0. The biggest feature of this release is that it merges the append/hsync/hflush features of branch-0.20-append, and security features of branch-0.20-secur

  1   2   3   >