attack prove their worth by hitting back.
- Piet Hein (via Tom White)
--- On Thu, 12/23/10, Ryan Rawson wrote:
> From: Ryan Rawson
> Subject: Re: provide a 0.20-append tarball?
> To: dev@hbase.apache.org
> Date: Thursday, December 23, 2010, 2:49 PM
> Looks like the fight doe
If you have a PMC member who is willing to be release manager, what is the
beef?
On Thu, Dec 23, 2010 at 2:49 PM, Ryan Rawson wrote:
> Looks like the fight does not go well. A lot of hdfs developers are
> concerned that it would detract resources. I'm not sure who's
> resources.
>
> I hope my
Looks like the fight does not go well. A lot of hdfs developers are
concerned that it would detract resources. I'm not sure who's
resources.
I hope my 13-15 month commented helped... I've heard "wait for the
next" version before and I am not interested in it. If that indeed
worked, a year ago w
On Wed, Dec 22, 2010 at 11:14 AM, Stack wrote:
> Let me ask Dhruba what he thinks about making a 0.20-append release
> (He's the release manager). Will also sound out the hadoop pmc since
> they'll have an opinion.
>
I asked Dhruba. He's fine w/ a release off tip of branch--0.20-append.
I just
(I moved this topic to dev@hbase.apache.org from user).
On Wed, Dec 22, 2010 at 10:12 AM, Gary Helmling wrote:
> What you have there currently seems accurate. So I don't think it needs to
> mention HBASE-3194 directly. Maybe add a note that we try to support Hadoop
> 0.20.x variants incorporati
> From: Stack
> > If we draw a line, then as an ASF community we should
> > have a fallback option somewhere in ASF-land for the user to
> > try. Vanilla Hadoop is not sufficient for HBase. Therefore,
> > I propose we make a Hadoop 0.20-append tarball available.
>
> What you thinking Andrew? I w
On Tue, Dec 21, 2010 at 6:44 PM, Andrew Purtell wrote:
> If we draw a line, then as an ASF community we should have a fallback option
> somewhere in ASF-land for the user to try. Vanilla Hadoop is not sufficient
> for HBase. Therefore, I propose we make a Hadoop 0.20-append tarball
> available.
; -Original Message-
> > From: Andrew Purtell [mailto:apurt...@apache.org]
> > Sent: Tuesday, December 21, 2010 6:45 PM
> > To: dev@hbase.apache.org
> > Cc: u...@hbase.apache.org
> > Subject: provide a 0.20-append tarball?
> >
> > The latest CDH3 b
0.90 will not be compatible with secure versions of Hadoop,
> which includes CDH3B3.
> >
> > Best regards,
> >
> >- Andy
> >
> > Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back.
> > - Piet Hein (via Tom White)
> >
> >
> > --- On Tue
compatible with secure versions of Hadoop, which
> includes CDH3B3.
>
> Best regards,
>
>- Andy
>
> Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back.
> - Piet Hein (via Tom White)
>
>
> --- On Tue, 12/21/10, Bill Graham wrote:
>
>>
> From: Ryan Rawson [mailto:ryano...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, December 22, 2010 3:09 AM
> To: dev@hbase.apache.org
> Cc: apurt...@apache.org
> Subject: Re: provide a 0.20-append tarball?
>
> There is nothing in the ASF that requires us to depend solely on ASF releases.
3
>
> There are currently 15 open issues listed. The blocker, at least, is already
> committed to 20-append and is just open because it's not in trunk yet, so the
> number may be off a bit.
>
> JG
>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Andrew Purtell [m
al Message-
> From: Andrew Purtell [mailto:apurt...@apache.org]
> Sent: Tuesday, December 21, 2010 6:45 PM
> To: dev@hbase.apache.org
> Cc: u...@hbase.apache.org
> Subject: provide a 0.20-append tarball?
>
> The latest CDH3 beta includes security changes that currently HBase
, Bill Graham wrote:
> From: Bill Graham
> Subject: Re: provide a 0.20-append tarball?
> To: u...@hbase.apache.org, apurt...@apache.org
> Cc: dev@hbase.apache.org
> Date: Tuesday, December 21, 2010, 11:41 PM
> Hi Andrew,
>
> Just to make sure I'm clear, are yo
Hi Andrew,
Just to make sure I'm clear, are you saying that HBase 0.90.0 is
incompatible with CDH3b3 due to the security changes?
We're just getting going with HBase and have been running 0.90.0rc1 on
an un-patched version of Hadoop in dev. We were planning on upgrading
to CDH3b3 to get the sync
The latest CDH3 beta includes security changes that currently HBase 0.90 and
trunk don't incorporate. Of course we can help out with clear HBase issues, but
for security exceptions or similar, what about that? Do we draw a line? Where?
I've looked over the CDH3B3 installation documentation but
16 matches
Mail list logo
