This is great! Thanks, Nigel.
I haven't seen the feature freeze for 0.22 formally announced.
May be it worth confirming it now by setting the start day, as of yesterday?
--Konstantin
On Tue, Dec 21, 2010 at 11:24 AM, Nigel Daley wrote:
> I think it's important we get more frequent releases bac
|
|>
| Subject: |
|>
>--------------
On Fri, Dec 17, 2010 at 2:34 PM, Konstantin Shvachko
wrote:
> Owen, Doug, Tom
>
> Could you please formulate and reply to this email separately
> what would be an *ACCEPTABLE *resolution of
> HADOOP-6685 for *YOU *to move *0.22* forward.
> Just trying to get something to work with to get u
+1
On Tue, Dec 21, 2010 at 11:24, Nigel Daley wrote:
> I think it's important we get more frequent releases back on track, so I'll
> volunteer to do it. Its been a while since I was the release manager so I'll
> need help.
>
> Looks like in Jira we currently have:
> 26 MR blockers: http://tin
Thanks Nige.
On Dec 22, 2010, at 6:24 AM, Nigel Daley wrote:
> I think it's important we get more frequent releases back on track, so I'll
> volunteer to do it. Its been a while since I was the release manager so I'll
> need help.
>
> Looks like in Jira we currently have:
> 26 MR blockers: h
On Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 12:12 PM, Tom White wrote:
> However, to get HADOOP-6685 resolved,
> from my point of view the main thing to sort out are the modularity
> concerns that I and others have raised, so that serializations are
> pluggable and don't add potentially incompatible libraries onto t
I think it's important we get more frequent releases back on track, so I'll
volunteer to do it. Its been a while since I was the release manager so I'll
need help.
Looks like in Jira we currently have:
26 MR blockers: http://tinyurl.com/23s5vzg
17 HDFS blockers: http://tinyurl.com/27w82vl
[Sending this again as my original post didn't make it to the list for
some reason. Can't see it in the moderation queue either.]
I don't personally see HADOOP-6685 as a blocker for a 0.22 release,
since there is a lot of value in there already that has not been
released yet, such as security. How
My question is
What would be an *ACCEPTABLE *resolution of HADOOP-6685 for *YOU *to
move *0.22* forward?
Asking Owen as the author of the patch, Doug and Tom as they vetoed it.
If I am asking the wrong question please let me know.
I am not proposing a particular solution, just trying to unders
On Fri, Dec 17, 2010 at 2:52 PM, Doug Cutting wrote:
> On 12/17/2010 02:34 PM, Konstantin Shvachko wrote:
>
>> It could be a zero-option plan - remove dependencies both for Avro and
>> ProtocolBuffers out into libraries, similar to schedulers.
>>
>
> I'd be fine with removing Avro from the mapred
On 12/17/2010 02:34 PM, Konstantin Shvachko wrote:
It could be a zero-option plan - remove dependencies both for Avro and
ProtocolBuffers out into libraries, similar to schedulers.
I'd be fine with removing Avro from the mapreduce user's classpath.
It's currently an unused option for RPC, and
Owen, Doug, Tom
Could you please formulate and reply to this email separately
what would be an *ACCEPTABLE *resolution of
HADOOP-6685 for *YOU *to move *0.22* forward.
Just trying to get something to work with to get us beyond the stagnation
point.
It could be "I want this patch in/out
On Dec 17, 2010, at 4:16 PM, Konstantin Boudnik wrote:
>
>
> You meant to say "...to be the release manager for 22 without 6685?", didn't
> you?
Yes..
It's been a long day ;-(
>
> Cos
>
On Fri, Dec 17, 2010 at 10:10AM, Ian Holsman wrote:
>
> On Dec 17, 2010, at 9:00 AM, Owen O'Malley wrote:
>
> >> Everyone who has discussed this patch has said it isn't critical to
> >> hadoop, and It's holding up everything else 0.22 is going to bring.
> >
> > I disagree that it isn't critical
On Dec 17, 2010, at 9:00 AM, Owen O'Malley wrote:
>> Everyone who has discussed this patch has said it isn't critical to hadoop,
>> and It's holding up everything else 0.22 is going to bring.
>
> I disagree that it isn't critical to Hadoop, but I'm not holding up 0.22. I'm
> just not volunteer
On Dec 16, 2010, at 12:26 PM, Ian Holsman wrote:
While it may be critical, I still don't understand why we couldn't
release without it, and carry on the discussion.
Putting so much emphasis and pressure on this issue is unwarranted.
It took months to stabilize 0.21 and it took a lot of Tom'
On Dec 17, 2010, at 6:15 AM, Owen O'Malley wrote:
>
> On Dec 16, 2010, at 10:54 AM, Ian Holsman wrote:
>
>> how are we going with the 0.22 release.
>
> Progress has been blocked because HADOOP-6685 is still blocked. I feel that
> HADOOP-6685 is critical for Hadoop and don't see much point in
On Dec 16, 2010, at 10:54 AM, Ian Holsman wrote:
how are we going with the 0.22 release.
Progress has been blocked because HADOOP-6685 is still blocked. I feel
that HADOOP-6685 is critical for Hadoop and don't see much point in
working on a 0.22 release without it. In particular, HADOOP-6
Hi Guys.
how are we going with the 0.22 release.
--
Ian Holsman
i...@holsman.net
PH: +1-703 879-3128 AOLIM: ianholsman Skype:iholsman
We are not afraid of the truth, in fact we plan on taking the truth out for a
nice meal while we persuade it to adopt our views
19 matches
Mail list logo
