+1 full agreement.
I think it will be a pita admin wise (due to how svn authorization is set up),
so it might slow down creation of a new branch, but its worth it.
---
Ian Holsman
AOL Inc
ian.hols...@teamaol.com
(703) 879-3128 / AIM:ianholsman
it's just a technicality
On Jan 14, 2011, at
Hey Nigel,
Would there be any way to add a feature where we can make some special
comment on the JIRA that would trigger a hudson retest? There are a lot of
really old patches out on the JIRA that would be worth re-testing against
trunk, and it's a pain to download and re-attach.
I'm thinking a
added.. (and Todd as well).
On Jan 13, 2011, at 3:21 PM, Suresh Srinivas wrote:
Please add me...
On 1/12/11 5:18 PM, Ian Holsman had...@holsman.net wrote:
and done.
anybody else want access?
On Jan 12, 2011, at 8:12 PM, Nigel Daley wrote:
I believe ommitters can gain access
on that note... I propose we discuss un-splitting the project altogether.
On Jan 14, 2011, at 3:39 AM, Jakob Homan wrote:
+1. The project split is a lie.
On Fri, Jan 14, 2011 at 12:32 AM, Ian Holsman had...@holsman.net wrote:
+1 full agreement.
I think it will be a pita admin wise (due
(with my Apache hat on)
I'm -0.5 on doing this as one big mega-patch and not including append (as
opposed to a series of smaller patches).
for the following reasons:
1. It encourages bad behavior. We want discussion (and development) to happen
on the lists, not in some office. By allowing
Todd, please file a Jira in Common against test component. FWIW, I fear the
precommit integration with Jira will need some amount of work as Apache moves
to Jira 4.2 in the coming weeks.
Nige
On Jan 14, 2011, at 12:57 AM, Todd Lipcon wrote:
Hey Nigel,
Would there be any way to add a
On Jan 13, 2011, at 10:18 PM, Nigel Daley wrote:
Folks,
As I look more at the impact of the common/MR/HDFS project split on
what and how we release Hadoop, I feel like the split needs an
adjustment. Many folks I've talked to agree that the project split
has caused us a splitting
Yup, I'll say it again. The process ain't perfect but it's good enough IMO.
Thank you Yahoo! for your contribution.
Clearly these patch will need review before commit when going into trunk.
Let's move on to 0.22.
Nige
On Jan 14, 2011, at 9:20 AM, Konstantin Boudnik wrote:
I tend to second
I'm a huge supporter of the idea. On a related note, we've been looking for the
right time to mavenize. Maybe we can do both together. We could pitch in a
bunch of work on both if we could get the timing right.
We've got a huge batch of commits in flight now, but if we can find something
that
Cool!
---
E14 - via iPhone
On Jan 14, 2011, at 9:18 AM, Todd Lipcon t...@cloudera.com wrote:
On Fri, Jan 14, 2011 at 8:51 AM, Owen O'Malley omal...@apache.org wrote:
On Jan 13, 2011, at 10:18 PM, Nigel Daley wrote:
Folks,
As I look more at the impact of the common/MR/HDFS project
On another thread discussing hadoop-0.20-append as a separate branch, most
people agreed that new features shouldn't be added to 0.20, now we have a
major feature and we are all gung ho for it..
Not all are. I'm against it for the all the same reasons I was
against 20 append. This is also
Hi Ian,
Thanks for holding off on that last .5. I've been working in a big email giving
move context on this. Let me preview some issues.
Our goal with this branch is two fold: 1) get the code out in a branch quickly
so we an collaborate on it with the community. 2) not change the character
Suresh, FWIW the precommit build fails fast in such cases (by design).
nige
On Jan 14, 2011, at 10:12 AM, Suresh Srinivas wrote:
It may not be as simple as triggering retest, as Some of the patches could be
old and may not apply.
On 1/14/11 8:44 AM, Nigel Daley nda...@mac.com wrote:
Cool
---
E14 - via iPhone
On Jan 14, 2011, at 10:01 AM, Nigel Daley nda...@mac.com wrote:
Thanks for the offer Eric! I agree it's the right time to mavenize, but I
think we should separate, but order, these two discussions/events. This
first, then mavenization.
Cheers,
Nige
On Jan
We actually still haven't recovered from the projects split.
We are still fixing HDFS and MR scripts with several jiras open.
If we start this re-split now again before the major release
we risk to get into the same mess, and it will create more work
for the community.
I see Nigel's point that
Hi Nigel,
As I look more at the impact of the common/MR/HDFS project split on what
and how we release Hadoop, I feel like the split needs an adjustment. Many
folks I've talked to agree that the project split has caused us a splitting
headache. I think 1 relatively small change could
1) I agree this is not a good precedent. We don't support mega-patches in
general. We are doing this as part of discontinuing the yahoo distribution
of Hadoop. We don't plan to continue doing 30 person year projects outside
apache and then merging them in!!
I think this is a very
Dhruba,
While I do not think that the releasability of a branch should be determined by
the market-cap (either on nasdaq or second-market) of the contributing company,
I think a well-tested release is beneficial to the community.
So, I support two releases: 20.100 now, that has security. And
Hadoop fans,
This week we held the inaugural SF Hadoop meetup, and it was a great
success! About forty people attended, and we held a number of great
discussions. After an initial plenary session, an agenda was quickly drawn
up and we identified a number of interesting topics. We spent the rest
19 matches
Mail list logo
