+1 (binding)
Thanks!
Cheers,
Chris
On 2/19/13 8:26 PM, "Arun C Murthy" wrote:
>Hi Folks,
>
>Thanks for participating in the discussion. I'd like to call a VOTE for
>acceptance of Apache Tez into the Incubator. I'll let the vote run till
>into this weekend (Sun 2/24 6pm PST).
>
>[ ] +1 Accept
I took care of granting this karma, after Gav provided it to me via an IRC
chat.
Cheers,
Chris
On 2/19/13 7:04 PM, "Arun C Murthy" wrote:
>Help, please?
>
>I got one of my other mentors to put up the wiki, but would be nice to
>get write access as well.
>
>thanks!
>Arun
>
>On Feb 18, 2013, at 3
On Feb 20, 2013, at 1:38 PM, Andrew Purtell wrote:
>> Arun, would you please clarify how Tez is (conceptually) different from
> the Workflow AM proposed in MAPREDUCE-4495/OOZIE-1178?
>
> I would also like to understand this as well. They seem largely identical,
> but the Tez proposal has a set of
+1
Antoine
On Feb 19, 2013, at 2:23 AM, ant elder wrote:
> I've already voted +1 for this on the easyant list but +1 again to bring
> the vote up again. Still need one more vote please anyone...
>
> ...ant
>
> On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 9:14 PM, Nicolas Lalevée > wrote:
>
>> This is a call for
Sendingasf-authorization-template
Transmitting file data .
Committed revision 851328.
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
> Arun, would you please clarify how Tez is (conceptually) different from
the Workflow AM proposed in MAPREDUCE-4495/OOZIE-1178?
I would also like to understand this as well. They seem largely identical,
but the Tez proposal has a set of initial committers disjunctive from those
who performed the
The project was named Howl when it was proposed, so the proposal is at
http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/HowlProposal
Alan.
On Feb 20, 2013, at 2:31 AM, Ross Gardler wrote:
> I'm brought to this thread byt he board report but my response here is as
> an IPMC member. My comment on the board repor
Hi,
Daniel Gomez Ferro (id = dferro) was recently elected as a new committer for
the S4 incubator project, but he does not have all permissions yet.
According to http://people.apache.org/committer-index.html , Daniel is a member
of the "incubator" group, but not yet of "s4": we'd need an IPMC m
+1 (binding) -jakob
On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 8:26 AM, Alejandro Abdelnur wrote:
> +1 (non-binding), glad to see that finally the idea of having a DAG AM is
> getting traction.
>
> Arun, would you please clarify how Tez is (conceptually) different from the
> Workflow AM proposed in MAPREDUCE-4495/
+1 (non-binding), glad to see that finally the idea of having a DAG AM is
getting traction.
Arun, would you please clarify how Tez is (conceptually) different from the
Workflow AM proposed in MAPREDUCE-4495/OOZIE-1178?
On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 6:50 AM, Hitesh Shah wrote:
> +1 ( non-binding )
>
+1 ( non-binding )
-- Hitesh
On Feb 19, 2013, at 8:26 PM, Arun C Murthy wrote:
> Hi Folks,
>
> Thanks for participating in the discussion. I'd like to call a VOTE for
> acceptance of Apache Tez into the Incubator. I'll let the vote run till into
> this weekend (Sun 2/24 6pm PST).
>
> [ ] +
On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 5:31 AM, Ross Gardler
wrote:
> I'm brought to this thread byt he board report but my response here is as
> an IPMC member. My comment on the board report is quite different, it is
> "I've read the thread on general@ and feel that the IPMC should make a
> clear recommendatio
Nick Burch wrote on Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 11:55:54 +:
> On Tue, 19 Feb 2013, Arun C Murthy wrote:
>> Help, please?
>
> I've added you to this list. Two things though, firstly usernames with
> spaces in aren't that usual, so you should check it works. Secondly, an
[[Arun Murthy]] would work
On Tue, 19 Feb 2013, Arun C Murthy wrote:
Help, please?
I've added you to this list. Two things though, firstly usernames with
spaces in aren't that usual, so you should check it works. Secondly, an
account with the username "ArunMurthy" already had karma, so is it
possible you previously cr
I'm brought to this thread byt he board report but my response here is as
an IPMC member. My comment on the board report is quite different, it is
"I've read the thread on general@ and feel that the IPMC should make a
clear recommendation to the board in this and similar cases. The IPMC
discussion
15 matches
Mail list logo
