The way it has been done in JCK was a specs written in somewhat
formalized language and a tool (called testgen, written in Perl if I
remember correctly) which was dynamically generating a lot of lang
tests. I think this is a middle ground Milind has mentioned.
BTW, it was a _huge_ effort: Sun had
Certification semms like mission creep. Our mission is to produce
open-source software. If we wish to produce testing software, that
seems fine. But running a certification program for non-open-source
software seems like a different task.
The Hadoop mark should only be used to refer to
On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 20:40, Milind Bhandarkar
mbhandar...@linkedin.com wrote:
Cos,
Can you give me an example of a system test that is not a functional
test ? My assumption was that the functionality being tested is specific
to a component, and that inter-component interactions (that's
Sure. As I said before, they are not mutually exclusive. Just stating my
experience that specs without a test suite are of no use. If I were to
prioritize, I would give priority to a TCK over natural-language specs.
That's all.
So far, I have seen many replacements for HDFS as InputFormat and
Cos,
I remember the issues about the inter-component interactions at that
point when you were part of the Yahoo Hadoop FIT team (I was on the other
side of the same floor, remember ? ;-)
Things like, Can Pig take full URIs as input, and so works with viewfs,
Can Local jobtracker still use HDFS
Hi Mike,
You really really don't want to do this.
Long story short... It won't work.
Can you elaborate? Are you talking about the bonded interfaces or about having
a separated network for interconnects and external network? What can go wrong
there?
Just a suggestion.. You don't want
Bonded will work but you may not see the performance you would expect. If you
need 1 GBe, go 10GBe less headache and has even more headroom.
Multiple interfaces won't work. Or I should say didn't work in past releases.
If you think about it, clients have to connect to each node. So having two
On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 3:29 AM, Steve Loughran ste...@apache.org wrote:
I think we should revisit this issue before people with their own agendas
define what compatibility with Apache Hadoop is for us
I agree completely. As you point out, this week we've had a flood of
products calling
Key seems to be how one would interpret version. Replace it with a synonym
like variant and this may be the intent.
On 5/13/11 9:50 AM, Doug Cutting cutt...@gmail.com wrote:
Yes, but there's an is earlier in the sentence.
Doug
On May 13, 2011 3:44 PM, Ted Dunning tdunn...@maprtech.com
On May 13, 2011, at 1:53 AM, Doug Cutting wrote:
Here certified is probably just intended to mean that the software
uses a certified open source license, e.g., listed at
http://www.opensource.org/licenses/. However they should say that this
includes or contains the various Apache products,
On Fri, May 13, 2011 at 00:11, Milind Bhandarkar
mbhandar...@linkedin.com wrote:
Cos,
I remember the issues about the inter-component interactions at that
point when you were part of the Yahoo Hadoop FIT team (I was on the other
side of the same floor, remember ? ;-)
Vaguely ;) Of course I
Hi Mike,
Thanks for trying to help out.
I had a talk with our networking guys this afternoon. According to them (and
this is way out of my area of expertise, so excuse any mistakes) multiple
interfaces shouldn't be a problem. We could set up a nameserver to resolve
hostnames to addresses in
On 05/13/2011 07:28 PM, Allen Wittenauer wrote:
If it has a modified version of Hadoop (i.e., not an actual Apache
release or patches which have never been committed to trunk), are
they allowed to say includes Apache Hadoop?
No. Those are the two cases we permit. We used to say that it was
On May 13, 2011, at 2:55 PM, Doug Cutting wrote:
On 05/13/2011 07:28 PM, Allen Wittenauer wrote:
If it has a modified version of Hadoop (i.e., not an actual Apache
release or patches which have never been committed to trunk), are
they allowed to say includes Apache Hadoop?
No. Those are
On 05/14/2011 12:13 AM, Allen Wittenauer wrote:
So what do we do about companies that release a product that says includes
Apache Hadoop but includes patches that aren't committed to trunk?
We yell at them to get those patches into trunk already. This policy
was clarified after that product
On May 13, 2011, at 3:16 PM, Doug Cutting wrote:
On 05/14/2011 12:13 AM, Allen Wittenauer wrote:
So what do we do about companies that release a product that says includes
Apache Hadoop but includes patches that aren't committed to trunk?
We yell at them to get those patches into trunk
On 05/14/2011 12:17 AM, Allen Wittenauer wrote:
... and if those patches are rejected by the community?
It would be very strange, since they've mostly been released in 203,
although not yet having been committed to trunk.
Doug
On May 13, 2011, at 2:55 PM, Doug Cutting wrote:
On 05/13/2011 07:28 PM, Allen Wittenauer wrote:
If it has a modified version of Hadoop (i.e., not an actual Apache
release or patches which have never been committed to trunk), are
they allowed to say includes Apache Hadoop?
No. Those are
Ok...
Hum, look, I've been force fed a couple of margaritas so, my memory is a bit
foggy...
You say your clients connect on nic A. Your cluster connects on nic B.
What happens when you want to upload a file from your client to HDFS? Or even
access it?
... ;-)
Sent from a remote device.
But distribution Z includes X kind of implies the existence of some such
that X != Y, Y != empty-set and X+Y = Z, at least in common usage.
Isn't that the same as a non-trunk change?
So doesn't this mean that your question reduces to the question of what
happens when non-Apache changes are made
On May 13, 2011, at 3:53 PM, Ted Dunning wrote:
But distribution Z includes X kind of implies the existence of some such
that X != Y, Y != empty-set and X+Y = Z, at least in common usage.
Isn't that the same as a non-trunk change?
So doesn't this mean that your question reduces to the
On May 14, 2011, at 12:41 AM, Owen O'Malley wrote:
On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 3:29 AM, Steve Loughran ste...@apache.org wrote:
I think we should revisit this issue before people with their own agendas
define what compatibility with Apache Hadoop is for us
I agree completely. As you point
22 matches
Mail list logo
