Fw: read this

Hello! New message, please read <http://speckrug.ru/women.php?zl> Matt Foley

Re: Stable release of 1.2

Waldyn, did you not receive my post to the list before lunch? (see below) The delay was caused because I've been fixing the ability to build rpms instead of just tarballs, which is currently broken in CentOS6. --Matt -- Forwarded message -- From: Matt Foley Date: Fri, J

Re: Questions about release plans

Hi Waldyn, I'm about to put out a Hadoop 1.2.1 release candidate, within the next day or so, which will hopefully be accepted as the new "stable" release. Then I'll do a 1.3.0 from current branch-1, which will become the new beta. Thanks, --Matt On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 8:29 AM, Benbenek, Waldyn

Re: [ANNOUNCE] Hadoop version 1.2.0 released

It appears to be propagating slowly but effectively. Hopefully by tomorrow it should be done. If it isn't, I'll provide more info, otherwise will consider the issue closed. Thanks, --Matt On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 1:12 PM, Matt Foley wrote: > It came to my attention yesterday (

Re: [ANNOUNCE] Hadoop version 1.2.0 released

ck in "Staging". I will continue to work on it; sorry for any inconvenience in the meantime. Regards, --Matt On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 12:32 AM, Matt Foley wrote: > I'm happy to announce that on May 13, Hadoop version 1.2.0 passed its > release vote. It is now available i

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: [RESULT] Release plan for Hadoop 2.0.5

Having just finished the 1.2.0 release, I have now taken the time to carefully read this entire thread. (For a more enjoyable experience, I'm practicing walking on hot coals next week :-) I think something got lost in the argumentation: First of all, what I understand is that 1. Arun is being ask

[ANNOUNCE] Hadoop version 1.2.0 released

I'm happy to announce that on May 13, Hadoop version 1.2.0 passed its release vote. It is now available in SVN and is in process of propagating to artifact mirrors. It should be available on all mirrors by end of day Wednesday. This release delivers over 200 enhancements and bug-fixes, compared

Re: [VOTE] sed bylaws.html -e 's/lazy\s+consensus/consensus approval/gi'

+1 (binding) Yes, let's standardize the terminology. --Matt On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 3:55 PM, Suresh Srinivas wrote: > +1 (binding) > > > On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 11:28 AM, Robert Evans > wrote: > > > As per Aaron's request I am starting a new voting thread to make it > > obvious that there is a

Re: Incorrect definition of lazy consensus in by-laws?

There's an alternative viewpoint on this, which is that sometimes it is best to do nothing. And if a proposal can't scrape up 3 lousy +1's out of 58 committers (or 35 PMC members), it's probably best to let it die a natural death. So the current definition doesn't seem bad to me. --Matt On Thu,

Re: [ANNOUNCE] Release of Hadoop 1.1.2

is still considered a beta release, is there a timeline when 1.1.x > branch will be considered stable? > > -Original Message- > From: mfo...@hortonworks.com [mailto:mfo...@hortonworks.com] On Behalf Of > Matt Foley > Sent: Wednesday, March 06, 2013 5:14 AM > To: g

Re: [DISCUSS] stabilizing Hadoop releases wrt. downstream

, > Tom > > On 3/8/13 4:16 PM, "Matt Foley" wrote: > > >> > >> If future Hadoop RMs would > >> be willing to drop us a note and indicate when the branch > >> is in a shape where Bigtop feedback is ready to be received > >> I think t

Re: [DISCUSS] stabilizing Hadoop releases wrt. downstream

> > If future Hadoop RMs would > be willing to drop us a note and indicate when the branch > is in a shape where Bigtop feedback is ready to be received > I think that'll be the best way to proceed. This info is always broadcast to common-...@hadoop.apache.org, but I will try to remember to send

[ANNOUNCE] Release of Hadoop 1.1.2

The Apache Hadoop release 1.1.2 is now available. (Some mirrors may take another day or so to update.) This release includes 24 bug fixes and backward-compatible enhancements, compared to Hadoop 1.1.1. Improvements include: - bug fixes in use of Kerberos security and SPNEGO - a couple pot

Re: Preparing 1.1.2-rc0, due to HADOOP-9115

ds going. > > > > > > Ashutosh > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2012 at 9:44 AM, Arun C Murthy > > wrote: > > > > > > > Thanks for doing this Matt! > > > > > > > > Arun > > > &g

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

[ANNOUNCE] Hadoop-1.1.1 stable release available

I'm pleased to announce that Hadoop version 1.1.1 is released as the newest stable version. The 20 bug fixes and improvements over 1.1.0 may be found in the Release Notes at http://hadoop.apache.org/docs/r1.1.1/releasenotes.html Best regards, --Matt Foley release manager

Re: [ANNOUNCE] Hadoop 1.1.0 release

Documentation and Jira cleanup are all complete, for Hadoop-1.1.0 and 1.0.4. --Matt On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 at 9:08 PM, Matt Foley wrote: > Hello, > The release of Hadoop-1.1.0 has been voted, accepted, and posted. > It is available in SVN and Maven, as well as at > http://www.apa

Re: [ANNOUNCE] Hadoop-1.0.4 release, with Security fix

ween Hadoop 1.0.4 > > just accepted and Hadoop 1.1.0 being > > voted at the same time? Also why is it important to keep and release > > both of these branches? > > I am lost here. I assume other people might have that question in mind > as well. > > > > Than

[ANNOUNCE] Hadoop 1.1.0 release

dress this security problem. Best regards, --Matt Foley Release Manager *CVE-2012-4449: Apache Hadoop security token vulnerabilities * Severity: Critical Vendor: The Apache Software Foundation Versions Affected: 0.20.X: All versions 0.23: All versions before 0.23.4 1.0: All versions before 1.0.

[ANNOUNCE] Hadoop-1.0.4 release, with Security fix

documentation update is still being worked on and will be available by Monday. This release is noteworthy for including a Security bug fix, related to CVE-2012-4449, discovered by Daryn Sharp and fixed by Owen O'Malley. The CVE announcement is below. Best regards, --Matt Foley Release Manager *CVE-2012

Re: [DISCUSS] Merge *-user@hadoop lists?

+1. Eliminate cross-posts. --Matt Sent from my iPhone On Jul 21, 2012, at 3:00 AM, Jun Ping Du wrote: > +1. Merging alias of *-user is convenient for user. > > Thanks, > > Junping > > - Original Message - > From: "Arun C Murthy" > To: general@hadoop.apache.org > Sent: Friday, July

[ANNOUNCE] Hadoop branch-1.1 and Release Plan for Hadoop-1.1.0

Greetings. With the approval of a public vote on common-dev@, I have branched Hadoop branch-1 to create branch-1.1. From this, I will create a release candidate RC-0 for Hadoop-1.1.0, hopefully to be available shortly after this weekend. There are over 80 patches in branch-1, over and above the

Re: [VOTE] Release hadoop-2.0.0-alpha-rc1

On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 10:22 AM, Arun C Murthy wrote: > > On May 15, 2012, at 7:20 PM, Arun C Murthy wrote: > > > I've created a release candidate (rc1) for hadoop-2.0.0-alpha that I > would like to release. > > > > It is available at: > http://people.apache.org/~acmurthy/hadoop-2.0.0-alpha-rc1/

Re: [VOTE] Release hadoop-2.0.0-alpha-rc1

Downloaded, validated checksums, installed single-box from tarball, ran basic HDFS tests. +1. Looks good. Thanks, Arun! --Matt On Mon, May 21, 2012 at 1:34 AM, Uma Maheswara Rao G wrote: > +1, Downloaded and verified HDFS tests and small MR job.. Thanks a lot > Arun. > > Thanks & Regards, > Uma

[ANNOUNCE] Hadoop release 1.0.3 available

- various production issue fixes Please see the Release Notes at http://hadoop.apache.org/common/docs/r1.0.3/releasenotes.html for all the details. Best regards, --Matt Foley Release Manager, Hadoop-1.0

[ANNOUNCE] Hadoop 1.0.2 release

, now fixed - Changed package names for 64-bit rpm/debs to use ".x86_64." instead of ".amd64." Please see the Release Notes at http://hadoop.apache.org/common/docs/r1.0.2/releasenotes.html for details. Regards, --Matt Foley Release Manager, 1.0.2

Re: [VOTE] Rename hadoop branches post hadoop-1.x

4, 3, 2, 1, 5 (binding) --Matt

[ANNOUNCE] Hadoop Release 1.0.1 - STABLE

Hadoop Release 1.0.1 is now available. This is a bug-fix release for version 1.0. This release should now be considered STABLE, replacing the venerable 0.20.203 release! Patches in this minor release include: - Added hadoop-client and hadoop-minicluster artifacts for ease of client install

[ANNOUNCE] Hadoop Release 1.0.0

HBase - Other performance enhancements, bug fixes, and features - All version 0.20.205 and prior 0.20.2xx features Please see the complete Hadoop 1.0.0 Release Notes<http://hadoop.apache.org/common/docs/r1.0.0/releasenotes.html>for details. Best regards, --Matt Foley Release Manager

Re: code tree changes to create 1.0

please do not make further commits to this branch for now. Thank you. --Matt On Sun, Nov 27, 2011 at 1:19 PM, Matt Foley wrote: > Dear all, > in the next hour I will make the following changes to the code tree, as > discussed and voted in other threads: > > * branch-0.20-

code tree changes to create 1.0

Dear all, in the next hour I will make the following changes to the code tree, as discussed and voted in other threads: * branch-0.20-security will be renamed to branch-1 * branch-0.20-security-205 will be copied to branch-1.0 Please hold off any commits to any of these named branches until my

Re: RESULT - [VOTE] Release hadoop-1.x.x off branch-0.20-security

Yes, branch-0.20-security-205 was branched from branch-0.20-security on 12 September 2011, when it was decided to create the 0.20.205.0 release. All commits to branch-0.20-security-205 since that time have also been committed to branch-0.20-security, so the latter remains a proper superset of 205.

Re: [DISCUSS] Apache Hadoop 1.0?

I support giving all three active code branches a clean start, on an equal footing: - The next release of 0.20-security (formerly expected as "0.20.205.1") to be 1.0.0, establishing branch-1.0 - The next release of 0.22 to be 2.0.0, establishing branch-2.0 - The recent release of 0.23.0 to be 3.0.

Re: [DISCUSS] Apache Hadoop 1.0?

I agree with some prior posters that renaming the 0.20-security sustaining branch could be confusing. How about the following (pseudo-code)? ## Just before we are ready to make rc0 for release 0.20.205.1, do: svn copy branch-0.20-security-205 branch-1.0 ## and actually release it from branch-1.0 a

[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

Re: Welcoming Eric Yang as a Hadoop Committer

Congrats, Eric! Well deserved! --Matt On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 1:51 PM, Devaraj Das wrote: > On behalf of the Hadoop PMC, I am pleased to announce that Eric Yang has > been elected a committer in the Apache Hadoop Common, HDFS, and MapReduce > projects. We appreciate all the work Eric has put int

[ANNOUNCE] 0.20.205.0 vote in progress on common-dev@

I'm announcing on this list because a lot of preparatory discussion for 0.20.205.0 took place on general@. However, per the current version of HowToRelease, the actual vote is called on common-dev@. If you wish to participate, please see thread at the co

Re: Update on hadoop-0.23

>> Sufficient interest in Bigtop so announcements and discussions can/should go to general@.* Why wouldn't this work like other projects, and Bigtop discussions go to the Bigtop mailing lists? (Announcements, of course, do belong on general.) People interested in Bigtop discussions sign up for t

Re: 0.20.205 Sustaining Release branch plan and content plan

shnik wrote: > On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 6:14 PM, Matt Foley > wrote: > > Hi Roman, > > Normally I would say no, but these seem to be build issues. Let me > consult > > with Giri. > > Great! What's the verdict? > > Thanks, > Roman. >

Re: 0.20.205 Sustaining Release branch plan and content plan

Hi Roman, Normally I would say no, but these seem to be build issues. Let me consult with Giri. Thanks, --Matt On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 4:37 PM, Roman Shaposhnik wrote: > Matt, > > sorry for chiming in late, but is there a chance for these fixes to be > committed to 0.20.205 branch? >https:

[ANNOUNCEMENT] branch-0.20-security-205 branch created

The branch-0.20-security-205 has been created. I will be working on creating release candidate 0.20.205-rc0 today. I will also post a summary of patches submitted over the past week and included in this branch. Thank you, --Matt

Re: 0.20.205 Sustaining Release branch plan and content plan

[REMINDER: branch-0.20.205 will be created this weekend.] Regarding "group 2" of the planning message, there were seven orphan patches, already in 0.20-security, but not yet spoken for in 205: HADOOP-7400. Fix HdfsProxyTests fails when the -Dtest.build.dir > and -Dbuild.test is set a dir oth

Re: 0.20.205 Sustaining Release branch plan and content plan

If I read the jira correctly, this is a workaround for RHEL6.0 that is no longer needed for RHEL6.1. Is that correct? If so, would it be no longer needed? On Fri, Sep 9, 2011 at 3:45 AM, Steve Loughran wrote: > > What about RHEL6.1 workarounds? > https://issues.apache.org/**jira/browse/HADOOP-7

0.20.205 Sustaining Release branch plan and content plan

Hi all, Over the past week a number of people have provided input for patches they would like to see in 205, with reasons and risk evaluations; please see the threads "Content request for 0.20.205 Sustaining Release" and "Add Append-HBase support in upcoming 20.205". Thanks to all who took the effo

Re: Defects to be committed to 0.20.205 branch

[moving from @mapreduce-dev to @general] Thanks, Venu. I'll look at these, and evaluate the risk/benefit of including them in 205. Have you run them internally in production, or are the patches brand new? Thanks, --Matt On Mon, Sep 5, 2011 at 9:47 PM, Venu Gopala Rao < venugopalarao.ko...@huawe

Re: Add Append-HBase support in upcoming 20.205

Hi Todd, Thank you, this is tremendously valuable input! I'll have to look in detail at each of these ten jiras, and will get back to the list with more info shortly. --Matt On Fri, Sep 2, 2011 at 1:03 PM, Todd Lipcon wrote: > The following other JIRAs have been committed in CDH for 18 months o

Re: Content request for 0.20.205 Sustaining Release

Thank you, Nathan. And thanks for combining these requests, it's much easier to review a single list than 10 or more emails. Does anyone else have requests for items to include in 0.20.205 - either already submitted to 0.20-security, or pending work? Thanks, --Matt On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 8:25

Re: Community Process for 0.20.205 Sustaining Release

Hi Milind, Thanks for your response. If you'll forgive me for reiterating statements that you've probably heard before, I'll try to concisely state why the community might consider accepting changes for HBase compatibility into 0.20.2xx. It is my understanding that HBase works correctly in trunk

Community Process for 0.20.205 Sustaining Release

Dear all, 0.20.204.0 will hopefully finish the release process soon, and it is time to start talking about 205. As Owen mentioned, I would like to volunteer as the Release Manager for 0.20.2xx, if that is acceptable to the community. I would also like to suggest some process changes. By continui

Re: Hadoop 0.22 update

+1 (non-binding). Sounds good to me. --Matt On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 1:27 PM, Devaraj Das wrote: > Yes... I meant the LTC. > > On Aug 2, 2011, at 1:23 PM, wrote: > > > Eli, > > > > I hope we don't have to remove the TaskTracker *grin*. > > > > Devaraj/Allen, > > > > You mean LinuxTaskControlle

Re: Hadoop build machine donations?

It seems to me that HW diversity is good for test machines, but not for build machines. Build machines you want to be rock solid and repeatable. Test machines you want to span the range of real-world variability. IMHO, --Matt On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 10:56 AM, Allen Wittenauer wrote: > > On Aug

Re: Vote to merge HDFS-1073 ito trunk

+1 for the merge. I've read a majority of the code changes, excluding the BNN and 2NN, approaching from the "big diff" rather than individual patches, and starting with the files most changed from both current trunk and the 1073 branchpoint. I've found almost nothing to comment on. It looks like