Sorry I missed this thread earlier.
I'm not going to worry about the water under the bridge at this point, but
going forward I would like to only include those issues marked as blocker. If a
new issue crops up I will be taking a closer look at it and may push back.
We've got less than 10
I can see them well.
I think Suresh's point is that non-blockers are going into 0.22.
Nigel, do you have full control over it?
Thanks,
--Konstantin
On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 1:50 PM, Eric Baldeschwieler eri...@yahoo-inc.comwrote:
makes sense to me, but it might be good to work to make these
On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 11:32 PM, Konstantin Shvachko
shv.had...@gmail.comwrote:
I can see them well.
I think Suresh's point is that non-blockers are going into 0.22.
Nigel, do you have full control over it?
Of course it's up to Nigel to decide, but here's my personal opinion:
One of the
I propose just to make them blockers before committing to attract attention
of the release manager and get his approval. Imho, even small changes, like
HDFS-1954 are blockers, because a vague UI message is bug and bugs are
blockers.
Thanks,
--Konstantin
On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 10:39 AM, Todd
On Jun 2, 2011, at 11:06 AM, Konstantin Shvachko wrote:
I propose just to make them blockers before committing to attract attention
of the release manager and get his approval.
The traditional response has almost always been that they get changed to
non-blockers before release. One person's
On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 11:06 AM, Konstantin Shvachko
shv.had...@gmail.comwrote:
I propose just to make them blockers before committing to attract attention
of the release manager and get his approval. Imho, even small changes, like
HDFS-1954 are blockers, because a vague UI message is bug and
Nigel,
I see that there are several non blockers being promoted to 0.22 from trunk.
From my understanding, any non blocker change to 0.22 should be approved by
vote. Is this correct?
Regards,
Suresh
On 5/25/11 11:46 PM, Nigel Daley nda...@mac.com wrote:
Looks like we're down to 12 blockers
On Jun 1, 2011, at 1:27 PM, Suresh Srinivas wrote:
I see that there are several non blockers being promoted to 0.22 from trunk.
From my understanding, any non blocker change to 0.22 should be approved by
vote. Is this correct?
No, the Release Manager has full control over what goes into a
makes sense to me, but it might be good to work to make these decisions visible
so folks can understand what is happening.
On Jun 1, 2011, at 1:46 PM, Owen O'Malley wrote:
On Jun 1, 2011, at 1:27 PM, Suresh Srinivas wrote:
I see that there are several non blockers being promoted to 0.22
On Jun 1, 2011, at 1:50 PM, Eric Baldeschwieler wrote:
makes sense to me, but it might be good to work to make these decisions
visible so folks can understand what is happening.
lol
I'm starting this now.
Nige
On May 25, 2011, at 11:46 PM, Nigel Daley wrote:
I'm planning to commit https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HADOOP-7106 (SVN
reorg) this Friday at 2pm PDT. Todd, were you able to test git history based
on your svn dump and import?
Cheers,
Nige
I had to call this off as the auth and email patch was out of date. I'll
reschedule for next Friday at 2pm.
Nige
On May 27, 2011, at 2:45 PM, Nigel Daley wrote:
I'm starting this now.
Nige
On May 25, 2011, at 11:46 PM, Nigel Daley wrote:
I'm planning to commit
Looks like we're down to 12 blockers on 0.22.
* Thanks to Cloudera for hosting a couple hack-a-thons over the past couple of
weeks which helped get this number down.
* Thanks to Devaraj Das for volunteering to get
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MAPREDUCE-2178 committed.
* Thanks to Tom
13 matches
Mail list logo
