+1.
Tsz-Wo
From: Stack st...@duboce.net
To: general@hadoop.apache.org
Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2011 10:01 AM
Subject: Re: [VOTE] Change bylaws to require 3 binding +1s for branch merge
+1
On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 5:41 PM, Eli Collins e...@cloudera.com wrote:
We could create an apache hadoop list of product selection discussions. I
believe this list is intended to be focused on project governance and similar
discussions. Maybe we should simply create a governance list and leave this
one to be the free for all?
On Jul 2, 2011, at 9:16 PM, Ian
On Wed, Jul 13, 2011 at 7:59 AM, Eric Baldeschwieler eri...@hortonworks.com
wrote:
We could create an apache hadoop list of product selection discussions. I
believe this list is intended to be focused on project governance and
similar discussions. Maybe we should simply create a governance
On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 3:44 PM, Todd Lipcon t...@cloudera.com wrote:
On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 10:38 AM, sanjay Radia san...@hortonworks.comwrote:
We can merge 1580 after 1073 is merged in.
Looks like the biggest thing in your 1073 list is the Backup NN related
changes.
The BN-related
+1
Cheers,
Nige
On Jul 12, 2011, at 10:01 AM, Stack st...@duboce.net wrote:
+1
On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 5:41 PM, Eli Collins e...@cloudera.com wrote:
+1 Sounds good to me.
Something like the following?
Index: main/author/src/documentation/content/xdocs/bylaws.xml
+1
Tom
On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 5:11 PM, Jakob Homan jgho...@gmail.com wrote:
As discussed in the recent thread on HDFS-1623 branching models, I'd
like to amend the bylaws to provide that branches should get a minimum
of three committer +1s before being merged to trunk.
The rationale:
Hi All,
It's looking like trunk is moving along rapidly - it's about time to start
thinking of the next release to unlock all of the goodies there.
As the RM, my current thinking is that after we merge NextGen MR (MR-279) and
the HDFS-1073 branch into trunk we should be good to create the
On Jul 11, 2011, at 3:50 PM, Eli Collins wrote:
On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 3:05 PM, Jakob Homan jgho...@gmail.com wrote:
Eli wrote:
This is the *branch* policy, which if I understand correctly, the
branch maintainer sets.
Thanks,
Eli
I do not understand the new role branch
On Wed, Jul 13, 2011 at 5:40 PM, sanjay Radia san...@hortonworks.com wrote:
On Jul 11, 2011, at 3:50 PM, Eli Collins wrote:
On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 3:05 PM, Jakob Homan jgho...@gmail.com wrote:
Eli wrote:
This is the *branch* policy, which if I understand correctly, the
branch
On Wed, Jul 13, 2011 at 6:10 PM, Arun C Murthy a...@hortonworks.com wrote:
On Jul 13, 2011, at 6:01 PM, Eli Collins wrote:
On Wed, Jul 13, 2011 at 3:39 PM, Arun C Murthy a...@hortonworks.com wrote:
Hi All,
It's looking like trunk is moving along rapidly - it's about time to start
On Jul 13, 2011, at 6:01 PM, Eli Collins wrote:
On Wed, Jul 13, 2011 at 3:39 PM, Arun C Murthy a...@hortonworks.com wrote:
Hi All,
It's looking like trunk is moving along rapidly - it's about time to start
thinking of the next release to unlock all of the goodies there.
As the RM, my
On Jul 13, 2011, at 6:01 PM, Eli Collins wrote:
In order to support HA in a dot release we'll need to merge in the
branch for HDFS-1623, but that shouldn't hold up branching for 23.
Sanjay mentioned this as the summit but I wanted to double check with
you, you support a dot release of 23
12 matches
Mail list logo
