As we discussed in the previous thread, I'd like to call a vote to establish
YARN as a sub-project (it's the best *term* we have to describe it in our
current nomenclature) of Apache Hadoop along with Common, HDFS & MapReduce.
Specifically,
# Create a separate top-level src folder hadoop-yarn, m
+1...
thanks
mahadev
On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 8:24 PM, Arun C Murthy wrote:
> As we discussed in the previous thread, I'd like to call a vote to establish
> YARN as a sub-project (it's the best *term* we have to describe it in our
> current nomenclature) of Apache Hadoop along with Common, HDFS
+1
On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 12:53 PM, Mahadev Konar wrote:
> +1...
>
> thanks
> mahadev
>
> On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 8:24 PM, Arun C Murthy wrote:
>> As we discussed in the previous thread, I'd like to call a vote to establish
>> YARN as a sub-project (it's the best *term* we have to describe it
+1
-- Hitesh
On Jul 26, 2012, at 8:24 PM, Arun C Murthy wrote:
> As we discussed in the previous thread, I'd like to call a vote to establish
> YARN as a sub-project (it's the best *term* we have to describe it in our
> current nomenclature) of Apache Hadoop along with Common, HDFS & MapReduce
+1
Tsz Wo
From: Edward J. Yoon
To: general@hadoop.apache.org
Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2012 8:56 PM
Subject: Re: [VOTE] - Establish YARN as a sub-project of Apache Hadoop
+1
On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 12:53 PM, Mahadev Konar wrote:
> +1...
>
> thanks
+1
Thanks,
Todd
On Jul 26, 2012, at 8:24 PM, Arun C Murthy wrote:
> As we discussed in the previous thread, I'd like to call a vote to establish
> YARN as a sub-project (it's the best *term* we have to describe it in our
> current nomenclature) of Apache Hadoop along with Common, HDFS & MapR
+1.
On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 8:24 PM, Arun C Murthy wrote:
> As we discussed in the previous thread, I'd like to call a vote to
> establish YARN as a sub-project (it's the best *term* we have to describe
> it in our current nomenclature) of Apache Hadoop along with Common, HDFS &
> MapReduce.
>
>
+1. Non-binding.
Thanks,
Junping
- Original Message -
From: "Arun C Murthy"
To: general@hadoop.apache.org
Sent: Friday, July 27, 2012 11:24:44 AM
Subject: [VOTE] - Establish YARN as a sub-project of Apache Hadoop
As we discussed in the previous thread, I'd like to
+1
Tom
On 7/26/12 10:24 PM, "Arun C Murthy" wrote:
> As we discussed in the previous thread, I'd like to call a vote to establish
> YARN as a sub-project (it's the best *term* we have to describe it in our
> current nomenclature) of Apache Hadoop along with Common, HDFS & MapReduce.
>
> Speci
+1
--Bobby Evans
On 7/26/12 10:24 PM, "Arun C Murthy" wrote:
>As we discussed in the previous thread, I'd like to call a vote to
>establish YARN as a sub-project (it's the best *term* we have to describe
>it in our current nomenclature) of Apache Hadoop along with Common, HDFS
>& MapReduce.
>
>
+1
Tom
On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 11:24 PM, Arun C Murthy wrote:
> As we discussed in the previous thread, I'd like to call a vote to establish
> YARN as a sub-project (it's the best *term* we have to describe it in our
> current nomenclature) of Apache Hadoop along with Common, HDFS & MapReduce.
+1
Aaron
On Jul 26, 2012, at 8:24 PM, Arun C Murthy wrote:
> As we discussed in the previous thread, I'd like to call a vote to establish
> YARN as a sub-project (it's the best *term* we have to describe it in our
> current nomenclature) of Apache Hadoop along with Common, HDFS & MapReduce.
>
+1
On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 8:54 AM, Arun C Murthy wrote:
> As we discussed in the previous thread, I'd like to call a vote to establish
> YARN as a sub-project (it's the best *term* we have to describe it in our
> current nomenclature) of Apache Hadoop along with Common, HDFS & MapReduce.
>
> S
+1
On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 8:24 PM, Arun C Murthy wrote:
> As we discussed in the previous thread, I'd like to call a vote to
> establish YARN as a sub-project (it's the best *term* we have to describe
> it in our current nomenclature) of Apache Hadoop along with Common, HDFS &
> MapReduce.
>
>
+1
On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 2:26 PM, Suresh Srinivas wrote:
> +1
>
> On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 8:24 PM, Arun C Murthy
> wrote:
>
> > As we discussed in the previous thread, I'd like to call a vote to
> > establish YARN as a sub-project (it's the best *term* we have to describe
> > it in our current
+1
On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 8:24 PM, Arun C Murthy wrote:
> As we discussed in the previous thread, I'd like to call a vote to establish
> YARN as a sub-project (it's the best *term* we have to describe it in our
> current nomenclature) of Apache Hadoop along with Common, HDFS & MapReduce.
>
> S
+1
On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 10:24 PM, Arun C Murthy wrote:
> As we discussed in the previous thread, I'd like to call a vote to
> establish YARN as a sub-project (it's the best *term* we have to describe
> it in our current nomenclature) of Apache Hadoop along with Common, HDFS &
> MapReduce.
>
>
+1
Daryn
On Jul 26, 2012, at 10:24 PM, Arun C Murthy wrote:
> As we discussed in the previous thread, I'd like to call a vote to establish
> YARN as a sub-project (it's the best *term* we have to describe it in our
> current nomenclature) of Apache Hadoop along with Common, HDFS & MapReduce.
+1
>
> On Jul 26, 2012, at 10:24 PM, Arun C Murthy wrote:
>
>> As we discussed in the previous thread, I'd like to call a vote to establish
>> YARN as a sub-project (it's the best *term* we have to describe it in our
>> current nomenclature) of Apache Hadoop along with Common, HDFS & MapReduce
+1
From: Devaraj Das [d...@hortonworks.com]
Sent: Wednesday, August 01, 2012 3:16 AM
To: general@hadoop.apache.org
Subject: Re: [VOTE] - Establish YARN as a sub-project of Apache Hadoop
+1
>
> On Jul 26, 2012, at 10:24 PM, Arun C Murthy wrote:
>
+1
On 8/1/12, Uma Maheswara Rao G wrote:
> +1
>
>
> From: Devaraj Das [d...@hortonworks.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, August 01, 2012 3:16 AM
> To: general@hadoop.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [VOTE] - Establish YARN as a sub-project of
With 22 +1s (9 binding) and no -1s the vote passes unanimously. Thanks to all
who voted.
I'll start the necessary process to move on this.
thanks,
Arun
On Jul 26, 2012, at 8:24 PM, Arun C Murthy wrote:
> As we discussed in the previous thread, I'd like to call a vote to establish
> YARN as a
Ok, we are nearly there.
# The new YARN jira is functional now (albeit with some teething issues with
notifications/workflow which should be resolved soon):
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/YARN
# I've committed YARN-1 to move YARN out of hadoop-mapreduce-project onto
hadoop-yarn-project i
Can we update the mailing list page with the new ones and combined users:
http://hadoop.apache.org/mailing_lists.html?
Thanks
Tom
On 8/8/12 2:29 PM, "Arun C Murthy" wrote:
> Ok, we are nearly there.
>
> # The new YARN jira is functional now (albeit with some teething issues with
> notificatio
I think this was being done via HADOOP-8652, but it looks like there
were some issues updating the site after the commit. I'm assuming
they're still working through those issues.
Jason
On 08/13/2012 09:16 AM, Thomas Graves wrote:
Can we update the mailing list page with the new ones and comb
YARN as a sub-project of Apache Hadoop
I think this was being done via HADOOP-8652, but it looks like there
were some issues updating the site after the commit. I'm assuming
they're still working through those issues.
Jason
On 08/13/2012 09:16 AM, Thomas Graves wrote:
> Can we updat
On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 3:29 PM, Arun C Murthy wrote:
>
> Ok, we are nearly there.
>
> # The new YARN jira is functional now (albeit with some teething issues
> with notifications/workflow which should be resolved soon):
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/YARN
> # I've committed YARN-1 to move
Tom,
On Aug 13, 2012, at 2:01 PM, Tom White wrote:
> The committer list needs to be set up
> by editing
> https://svn.apache.org/repos/infra/infrastructure/trunk/subversion/authorization/asf-authorization-template.
Good point, thanks for pointing it out.
> It should have the initial contents of
I personally am +1 for only pulling over committers from MR that have been
active on YARN. Like Arun said YARN is new code and not everything in MR
applies directly to YARN or vise versa.
--Bobby
On 8/14/12 1:19 PM, "Arun C Murthy" wrote:
>Tom,
>
>On Aug 13, 2012, at 2:01 PM, Tom White wrote:
I think we need to be careful not to exclude people. All existing MR
committers have been trusted to commit to YARN so they should continue
to be trusted to commit to it. The simplest way would be to include
all existing MR committers. Alternatively, if it's generally
considered important to start
Hi Tom,
Speaking as someone who is being excluded from the new list, this seems fair to
me. It seems like you are worrying about a hypothetical. Anyone who feels
they have contributed significantly to YARN need only identify themselves.
Others are welcome to do so and become committers via t
Hello,
I agree with Tom on this one. Seeding the initial committer list of a split
off project with those committers on the previous project is what we did
during the Common/HDFS/MR project split, and I see no reason to deviate
from that practice in this case.
In matters such as who should be on
Tom,
On Aug 14, 2012, at 5:44 PM, Tom White wrote:
> Alternatively, if it's generally
> considered important to start with active committers, add all MR
> committers who have previously committed to the YARN tree.
Good point. As I said, my personal preference is different; but if you feel
stron
Arun,
Creating a list of people without specifying the precise criteria is
problematic (particularly since the criteria weren't discussed before
the vote), and it's awkward for those folks who have committed code to
YARN in the past but are not on the list to have to ask to be
included. It's far b
Agree with Tom. No reason moving the yarn directory up one level in
the repo means we need to revisit all this now. Let's get back to work
and revisit this at TLP time.
On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 2:24 PM, Tom White wrote:
> Arun,
>
> Creating a list of people without specifying the precise criteria
+1 for Arun's proposal. It seems reasonable to me.
Here are my thoughts on this thread:
Some have voiced opinion that they would not have supported YARN becoming a
sub-project if they knew committer list is going to change. YARN was voted
as a sub-project on the merit of it being a distinct funct
Hi Guys,
The existing discussion and conversation below is the precise reason that I
suggested
Hadoop consider spinning out the rest of its *products* as *projects*. Folks
have piped
up and listed technical reasons as the challenges behind this, and then
responded
with clear community reasons e
On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 12:59 PM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J)
wrote:
> Hi Guys,
>
> The existing discussion and conversation below is the precise reason that I
> suggested
> Hadoop consider spinning out the rest of its *products* as *projects*. Folks
> have piped
> up and listed technical reasons a
Hi Eli,
On Aug 16, 2012, at 1:08 PM, Eli Collins wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 12:59 PM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J)
> wrote:
>> Hi Guys,
>>
>> The existing discussion and conversation below is the precise reason that I
>> suggested
>> Hadoop consider spinning out the rest of its *products* as
On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 1:11 PM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J)
wrote:
> Hi Eli,
>
> On Aug 16, 2012, at 1:08 PM, Eli Collins wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 12:59 PM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J)
>> wrote:
>>> Hi Guys,
>>>
>>> The existing discussion and conversation below is the precise reason that I
On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 11:27 AM, Suresh Srinivas wrote:
> Some have voiced opinion that they would not have supported YARN becoming a
> sub-project if they knew committer list is going to change. YARN was voted
> as a sub-project on the merit of it being a distinct functionality from
> rest of ex
Hi Eli,
On Aug 16, 2012, at 1:21 PM, Eli Collins wrote:
>>> [...snip...]
>>
>> Keeping code in the same repository with a PMC with different sets of
>> permissions in that repository *is* the sign of a distinct community.
>> Doesn't matter if you want the code there together, and allowing patches
A very interesting point, Chris (and great quotes!).
As a non-PMC 3-years old committer of Hadoop I'd say that the split-line of
'PMC vs. committers' was always a very touchy-feely issue for the community. It
almost felt in times that only those who behave along a "party" lines (in some
definition
+1, after the fact. Was off the grid.
Thanks,
+Vinod
On Jul 26, 2012, at 8:24 PM, Arun C Murthy wrote:
> As we discussed in the previous thread, I'd like to call a vote to establish
> YARN as a sub-project (it's the best *term* we have to describe it in our
> current nomenclature) of Apache H
The HDFS and MapReduce committer roles were split to ease the
transition to TLPs, where both projects could manage and release their
code independently. However, after an initial burst of enthusiasm,
progress has been trending toward merging the projects back together.
The original rationale for sp
Woah, I'm gone for one day and miss out a lot of fun - thank god for little
mercies! :)
A couple of quick responses before I need to run again...
> However, contrary appeals to emotional reasoning citing "exclusion" or
> a "lack of trust in contributors" are lazy and invalid. The proposal
> is a
As someone who has contributed major code to YARN, I would prefer to have
the committer list to be inclusive of all MR committers.
I quickly browsed the list of MR and HDFS committers. Lot of HDFS
committers are really folks who have worked on only MR side (like me) who
have rarely contributed to
Chris has seen more of these sorts of things than any of the other
participants in this discussion.
His experience here is very valuable.
On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 1:11 PM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J) <
chris.a.mattm...@jpl.nasa.gov> wrote:
> > Not sure that's the case, eg I think we all want to keep
On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 1:21 PM, Eli Collins wrote:
> I think everyone is in agreement that
> yarn, like the other subprojects, will have it's own set of
> committers
Yes, that is unfortunately the status quo in Hadoop, since the vote to
combine these sets failed in August of 2010:
http://s.apac
On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 3:46 PM, Doug Cutting wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 1:21 PM, Eli Collins wrote:
>> I think everyone is in agreement that
>> yarn, like the other subprojects, will have it's own set of
>> committers
>
> Yes, that is unfortunately the status quo in Hadoop, since the vote
On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 4:13 PM, Eli Collins wrote:
> Sure, how about a vote between:
>
> 1. The status quo (distinct MR and HDFS committers where MR includes YARN)
> 2. Distinct MR, HDFS and YARN committers
> 3. Combine MR, YARN, HDFS committers
(3) is a change to the bylaws, getting rid of the
On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 11:38 AM, Doug Cutting wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 4:13 PM, Eli Collins wrote:
>> Sure, how about a vote between:
>>
>> 1. The status quo (distinct MR and HDFS committers where MR includes YARN)
>> 2. Distinct MR, HDFS and YARN committers
>> 3. Combine MR, YARN, HDFS
On Aug 22, 2012, at 11:43 AM, Eli Collins wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 11:38 AM, Doug Cutting wrote:
>>> 2. Distinct MR, HDFS and YARN committers
>>> 3. Combine MR, YARN, HDFS committers
>>
>> So we might better just vote on (2)
>> versus (3)?
>
> Works for me. What do others think?
Can
On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 11:13 AM, Vinod Kumar Vavilapalli
wrote:
>
> On Aug 22, 2012, at 11:43 AM, Eli Collins wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 11:38 AM, Doug Cutting wrote:
2. Distinct MR, HDFS and YARN committers
3. Combine MR, YARN, HDFS committers
>>>
>>> So we might better just
Vote already started now?
Is this also runs for 7 days?
-thx
On Fri, Aug 24, 2012 at 12:03 AM, Eli Collins wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 11:13 AM, Vinod Kumar Vavilapalli
> wrote:
> >
> > On Aug 22, 2012, at 11:43 AM, Eli Collins wrote:
> >
> >> On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 11:38 AM, Doug Cuttin
Thanks for the clarification.
Seems like we can start a vote on those lines. But let's do that separately on
a fresh thread. This one has stretched for far too long after the original vote
thread concluded.
Thanks,
+Vinod
On Aug 23, 2012, at 11:33 AM, Eli Collins wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 23, 201
Will do. Not sure we can do a single vote with multiple options since
it represents a change to the bylaws and it would be possible for both
votes to pass. I'll start a vote for #3 and if that fails someone can
start a vote for #2.
Thanks,
Eli
On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 7:11 PM, Vinod Kumar Vavila
57 matches
Mail list logo
