Konstantin, your issue with the test cases requiring a umask 02 is a good
point. I'll patch it and can roll a 0.20.203.1 release candidate.
umask is not a big concern. I reset it to standard 0022.
Still there were 8 other test failures: 7 in mapred, and 1 hdfsproxy.
Stable release should pass
-1 for rc1
I downloaded and ran the test target 3 times.
First run failed because my umask is defaulted to 0002, which is a known
problem HADOOP-5050 committed to 0.21 but not 0.20.
Set umask to 0022 and re-ran test twice. Both resulted in failure. Here is
the list of failed tests:
[junit]
On 05/03/2011 06:01 PM, Arun C Murthy wrote:
On May 3, 2011, at 5:17 PM, Doug Cutting cutt...@apache.org wrote:
On 05/02/2011 02:33 PM, Arun C Murthy wrote:
Are you simply asking for someone to go through the 450 odd jiras and
set 'fix-for' fields?
Every other release we've made is
I think its a good idea to release hadoop-0.20.203. It moves Apache Hadoop a
step forward.
Looks like the technical difficulties are resolved now with latest Arun's
commits.
Being a superset of hadoop-0.20.2 it can be considered based on one of the
official Apache releases.
I don't think there
On 03/05/11 01:41, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
I am constantly amazed at how
quiet it is in this project, at least until I remember that
most of the work is done exclusively via jira, unlike any of
my other followed projects that use jira. I'd suggest that
the right place to hold any discussion is
I think we still need to incorporate the patches currently checked
into branch 0.20. For example, Owen identified a major bug
(BooleanWritable's comparator is broken) and filed a jira
(HADOOP-6928) to put it in branch-0.20, where I reviewed it and
checked it in, so this bug would be fixed in the
PLEASE NOTE
Voting +1 for a release means that you have downloaded the
source code package, verified its signatures, compiled it
on your platform of choice, and checked to your satisfaction
that it matches the source code we have in subversion and that
is is better (in your opinion) than the last
Just to gauge what amount of stuff is in branch-0.20-security-203 I wrote a
quick script which does a comparison based on JIRAs mention in the commit
log. It output the following list of JIRAs that are in the branch but not
committed to trunk. I've marked many as N/A meaning that they don't apply
Hello!
I guess I am concerned as a user of hadoop that the only way to get an
“endorsed” up-to-date version of hadoop one has to abandon the community and
“trust” a commercial release with its special sauce.
I am just hoping that the community can put together a nice stable up-to-date
patched
Doug,
On May 2, 2011, at 1:40 PM, Doug Cutting wrote:
Also note that, on the common-dev thread, Eli Tom have both noted a
number of inconsistencies between this set of patches and trunk, 0.22
and even prior 0.20 branches and releases. In addition to the lack of
community involvement in patch
On 05/02/2011 02:05 PM, Arun C Murthy wrote:
As I noted before you were the first one to propose this release off
Yahoo security patch-set in April, 2010:
http://s.apache.org/5Gv
What has changed since? Clearly, the same situation exists today.
I have absolutely no objection in principle to
On May 2, 2011, at 2:21 PM, Doug Cutting wrote:
On 05/02/2011 02:05 PM, Arun C Murthy wrote:
As I noted before you were the first one to propose this release off
Yahoo security patch-set in April, 2010:
http://s.apache.org/5Gv
What has changed since? Clearly, the same situation exists today.
On May 3, 2011, at 7:33 AM, Arun C Murthy wrote:
This patchset started from 0.20.1 has is complete superset of 0.20.1.
We will work towards ensuring it is a complete superset of the last stable
release: 0.20.2.
so are you intending to make it a superset for 203? or for a future release?
On 05/02/2011 02:33 PM, Arun C Murthy wrote:
We will work towards ensuring it is a complete superset of the last
stable release: 0.20.2.
Great! Who's 'we'? Do you want any help with this?
Doug
Most points in this thread are valid, having to do with the process of how the
contribution was assembled; and specific technical aspects of it, e.g. JIRAs
missing from branch 0.20.203 relative to branch 0.20. However,
From: Doug Cutting cutt...@apache.org
Assuming the technical
On Mon, May 2, 2011 at 3:15 PM, Arun C Murthy a...@yahoo-inc.com wrote:
On May 2, 2011, at 3:05 PM, Andrew Purtell wrote:
Some technical concerns seem reasonable. Regarding that:
From: Stack st...@duboce.net
How hard would it be to get the patches Tom lists below into
On May 2, 2011, at 2:49 PM, Ian Holsman wrote:
On May 3, 2011, at 7:33 AM, Arun C Murthy wrote:
This patchset started from 0.20.1 has is complete superset of 0.20.1.
We will work towards ensuring it is a complete superset of the last
stable release: 0.20.2.
so are you intending to
On 05/02/2011 03:05 PM, Andrew Purtell wrote:
What strikes me, as an observer to this discussion, is that here
community does not seem equated with Yahoo by implication. Perhaps
I misread. Nevertheless, Yahoo retains a good percentage of active
Core developers with standing as both committers
Doug Cutting cutt...@apache.org wrote:
On 05/02/2011 03:05 PM, Andrew Purtell wrote:
What strikes me, as an observer to this discussion, is that here
community does not seem equated with Yahoo by implication. Perhaps
I misread. Nevertheless, Yahoo retains a good percentage of active
Core
On May 2, 2011, at 12:15 PM, Ian Holsman wrote:
moving this thread to general@
On May 3, 2011, at 3:58 AM, Doug Cutting wrote:
Should we release
http://people.apache.org/~omalley/hadoop-0.20.203.0-rc0/?
The patch selection process for this branch did not appear to be a
community
It is perfectly reasonable for Doug (or anyone else) to vote
on a release based on a lack of version history, adequate
description of the sweet meats, or anything else that others
might consider non-technical. This is a release vote!
It does not require consensus. It requires minimal review
21 matches
Mail list logo
