+1
Stay safe,
--Konstantin
On Thu, Sep 24, 2020 at 10:59 PM Elek, Marton wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Thank you for all the feedback and requests,
>
> As we discussed in the previous thread(s) [1], Ozone is proposed to be a
> separated Apache Top Level Project (TLP)
>
> The proposal with all the
>>>
>>> Eric
>>>
>>> [1]
>>>
>>> https://hadoop.apache.org/docs/r2.10.0/hadoop-project-dist/hadoop-common/Compatibility.html
>>> [2]
>>>
>>> https://hadoop.apache.org/docs/r3.0.0/hadoop-project-dist/hadoop-common/Compatib
Hi Eric,
We had a long discussion on this list regarding making the 2.10 release the
last of branch-2 releases. We intended 2.10 as a bridge release between
Hadoop 2 and 3. We may have bug-fix releases or 2.10, but 2.11 is not in
the picture right now, and many people may object this idea.
I
+1 on RC1
- Verified signatures
- Verified maven artifacts on Nexus for sources
- Checked rat reports
- Checked documentation
- Checked packaging contents
- Built from sources on RHEL 7 box
- Ran unit tests for new HDFS features with Java 8
Thanks,
--Konstantin
On Tue, Oct 22, 2019 at 2:55 PM
+1 on RC0.
- Verified signatures
- Built from sources
- Ran unit tests for new features
- Checked artifacts on Nexus, made sure the sources are present.
Thanks
--Konstantin
On Wed, Oct 16, 2019 at 6:01 PM Jonathan Hung wrote:
> Hi folks,
>
> This is the first release candidate for the first
+1 for the merge.
We probably should not bother with branch-3.0 merge since it's been voted
EOL.
Thanks,
--Konstantin
On Thu, Aug 22, 2019 at 4:43 PM Jonathan Hung wrote:
> Hi folks,
>
> As per [1], starting a vote to merge YARN-8200 (and YARN-8200.branch3)
> feature branch to branch-2 (and
+1 for the proposal.
I thought we already EOL-ed 2.6 though some time ago.
Thanks,
--Konstantin
On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 8:03 PM Wangda Tan wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> This is a vote thread to mark any versions smaller than 2.7 (inclusive),
> and 3.0 EOL. This is based on discussions of [1]
>
> This
I would also suggest making an explicit commit to the branch stating it is
EOL.
Thanks,
--Konstantin
On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 7:59 PM Wangda Tan wrote:
> Thank you all for suggestions. Let me send a vote email to mark 2.6, 2.7,
> 3.0 EOL.
>
> - Wangda
>
> On Wed, Aug 21, 2019 at 9:34 AM Akira
Sounds like a good idea to me.
This has been tested on branch-2 in production for some time and benchmarks
look good.
Thanks,
--Konstantin
On Fri, Mar 29, 2019 at 12:14 PM Jonathan Hung wrote:
> Hello devs,
>
> Starting a discuss thread to merge resource types/native GPU scheduling
> support
+1 Makes sense to me.
Thanks,
--Konst
On Mon, Feb 4, 2019 at 6:14 PM Jonathan Hung wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Starting a vote based on the discuss thread [1] for moving branch-2
> precommit/nightly test builds to openjdk8. After this change, the test
> phase for precommit builds [2] and branch-2
reat work.
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Konstantin Shvachko [mailto:shv.had...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Saturday, December 22, 2018 6:48 AM
> To: Hadoop Common ; hdfs-dev <
> hdfs-...@hadoop.apache.org>
> Cc: mapreduce-dev@hadoop.apache.org; yarn-...@hadoop.apache.org
>
Obviously +1 from me.
With four binding +1s, two non-binding +1s, and no -1s this vote passes.
Thank you folks for working on the feature and for voting.
Will do the merge in bit.
Thanks,
--Konst
On Fri, Dec 14, 2018 at 6:16 PM Konstantin Shvachko
wrote:
> Hi Hadoop developers,
>
>
Hi Hadoop developers,
I would like to propose to merge to trunk the feature branch HDFS-12943 for
Consistent Reads from Standby Node. The feature is intended to scale read
RPC workloads. On large clusters reads comprise 95% of all RPCs to the
NameNode. We should be able to accommodate higher
r with real workload.
>
> Comments?
>
> --Yongjun
>
> On Fri, Dec 7, 2018 at 4:10 PM Konstantin Shvachko
> wrote:
>
>> Hi Daryn,
>>
>> Wanted to backup Chen's earlier response to your concerns about rotating
>> calls in the call queue.
>> O
of this community. Please check your availability for
followup discussions if you choose to get involved with important decisions.
On Fri, Dec 7, 2018 at 4:10 PM Konstantin Shvachko
wrote:
> Hi Daryn,
>
> Wanted to backup Chen's earlier response to your concerns about rotating
> calls
to fix automatic failover with ZKFC. Currently it does not doesn't
>> know about ObserverNodes trying to convert them to SBNs.
>>
>> Thanks.
>> --Yongjun
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 5:27 PM Konstantin Shvachko
>> wrote:
>>
>> >
Hi Hadoop developers,
I would like to propose to merge to trunk the feature branch HDFS-12943 for
Consistent Reads from Standby Node. The feature is intended to scale read
RPC workloads. On large clusters reads comprise 95% of all RPCs to the
NameNode. We should be able to accommodate higher
tin for pointing out.
> As 3.2 is pretty much on RC level, its better we try to find a good
> solution to this issue.
>
> I ll follow up on this in the jira.
>
> - Sunil
>
> On Thu, Oct 25, 2018 at 11:35 AM Konstantin Shvachko
> wrote:
>
>> I've tried to attract attent
I've tried to attract attention to an incompatibility issue through the
jira, but it didn't work. So pitching in in this thread.
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HDFS-12026
It introduced binary incompatibility, which will prevent people from
upgrading from 3.1 to 3.2.
I think it can get messy
Hi everybody,
With 4 binding and 4 non-binding +1s and no -1s the vote for Apache Release
2.7.6 passes.
Thank you everybody for contributing to the release, testing, and voting.
Binding +1s
Zhe Zhang
Brahma Reddy Battula
Jason Lowe
Konstantin Shvachko
Non-binding +1s
Chen Liang
Erik Krogen
My formal +1 for 2.7.6 RC0
Thanks,
--Konstantin
On Mon, Apr 9, 2018 at 4:14 PM, Konstantin Shvachko <shv.had...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Hi everybody,
>
> This is the next dot release of Apache Hadoop 2.7 line. The previous one
> 2.7.5 was released on December 14, 2017.
> R
Hi Lei,
Did you have any luck with deploy?
Could you please post your findings on
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HADOOP-15205
Thanks,
--Konstantin
On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 12:10 PM, Lei Xu wrote:
> Ajay, thanks for spotting this.
>
> I am working on fix the deploy.
>
A note to release managers. As discussed in
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HADOOP-15205
We are producing release artifacts without sources jars. See e.g.
https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/releases/org/apache/hadoop/hadoop-common/3.0.1/
Based on what is staged on Nexus for
A note to release managers. As discussed in
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HADOOP-15205
We are producing release artifacts without sources jars. See e.g.
https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/releases/org/apache/hadoop/hadoop-common/3.1.0/
I believe this has something to do
Hi everybody,
This is the next dot release of Apache Hadoop 2.7 line. The previous one 2.7.5
was released on December 14, 2017.
Release 2.7.6 includes critical bug fixes and optimizations. See more
details in Release Note:
http://home.apache.org/~shv/hadoop-2.7.6-RC0/releasenotes.html
The RC0 is
Just heads up, working on the release candidate now.
It's been a while, I know. But we had some blockers.
Thanks,
--Konstantin
On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 5:59 PM, Konstantin Shvachko <shv.had...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Planning to do a maintenance 2.7.6 release with close to 40 chan
The proposal to add it as a subproject of Hadoop makes sense to me. Thank
you Owen.
I am glad to have a path for scaling HDFS further, especially as it enters
areas like IoT and self-driving cars, where storage requirements are huge.
I am not very fond of the name HDSL, though. "Storage Layer"
Thanks Subru for initiating the thread about GPU support.
I think the path of taking 2.9 as a base for 2.10 and adding new resource
types into it is quite reasonable.
That way we can combine stabilization effort on 2.9 with GPUs.
Arun, upgrading Java is probably a separate topic.
We should
Planning to do a maintenance 2.7.6 release with close to 40 changes since
the last release.
If there are no objections I'll start preparations.
Please let me know if there are blockers:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HDFS-12641?filter=12343253
Thanks,
--Konstantin
Hi Sanjay,
With respect to Ozone my two main concerns were:
1. Wether Ozone can help scaling out the namespace service in handling
higher RPC workloads.
I think we came to common conclusion that using Ozone as a block management
layer is a reasonable path to scaling HDFS.
The discussions are
Zhang
Konstantin Shvachko
Naganarasimha Garla
Non-binding +1s
Erik Krogen
Brahma Reddy Battula
Eric Badger
Jonathan Hung
>> On Thu, Dec 7, 2017 at 7:22 PM, Konstantin Shvachko <shv.had...@gmail.com
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> Hi everybody,
>>>
>>>
Correction:
With 7 binding and 4 non-binding +1s and no -1s the vote for Apache Release
2.7.5 passes.
Thank you everybody for contributing to the release, testing it, and voting.
Binding +1s
Kihwal Lee
Jason Lowe
John Zhuge
Rohith Sharma K S
Eric Payne
Zhe Zhang
Konstantin Shvachko
Non-binding
Brahma Reddy Battula
Eric Badger
Jonathan Hung
On Thu, Dec 7, 2017 at 7:22 PM, Konstantin Shvachko <shv.had...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Hi everybody,
>
> I updated CHANGES.txt and fixed documentation links.
> Also committed MAPREDUCE-6165, which fixes a consistently failing tes
Here is my formal +1.
Thanks,
--Konstantin
On Thu, Dec 7, 2017 at 7:22 PM, Konstantin Shvachko <shv.had...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Hi everybody,
>
> I updated CHANGES.txt and fixed documentation links.
> Also committed MAPREDUCE-6165, which fixes a consistently failing tes
> Junping
>
>
> --
> *From:* Konstantin Shvachko <shv.had...@gmail.com>
> *Sent:* Saturday, December 9, 2017 11:06 AM
> *To:* Junping Du
> *Cc:* common-...@hadoop.apache.org; hdfs-...@hadoop.apache.org;
> mapreduce-dev@hadoop.apache.org; yarn-
Hey Junping,
Could you pls upload mds relative to the tar.gz etc. files rather than
their full path
/build/source/target/artifacts/hadoop-2.8.3-src.tar.gz:
MD5 = E5 3D 04 47 7B 85 E8 B5 8A C0 A2 64 68 F0 47 36
Otherwise mds don't match for me.
Thanks,
--Konstantin
On Tue, Dec 5, 2017 at
Hi everybody,
I updated CHANGES.txt and fixed documentation links.
Also committed MAPREDUCE-6165, which fixes a consistently failing test.
This is RC1 for the next dot release of Apache Hadoop 2.7 line. The
previous one 2.7.4 was release August 4, 2017.
Release 2.7.5 includes critical bug fixes
issed in changes.txt.
>
> MAPREDUCE-6975
> HADOOP-14919
> HDFS-12596
> YARN-7084
> HADOOP-14881
> HADOOP-14827
> HDFS-12832
>
>
> --Brahma Reddy Battula
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Konstantin Shvachko [mailto:s
;
>>
>> Looks follow commits are missed in changes.txt.
>>
>> MAPREDUCE-6975
>> HADOOP-14919
>> HDFS-12596
>> YARN-7084
>> HADOOP-14881
>> HADOOP-14827
>> HDFS-12832
>>
>>
>> --Brahma Reddy Battula
>>
>>
Hi everybody,
This is the next dot release of Apache Hadoop 2.7 line. The previous one
2.7.4 was release August 4, 2017.
Release 2.7.5 includes critical bug fixes and optimizations. See more
details in Release Note:
http://home.apache.org/~shv/hadoop-2.7.5-RC0/releasenotes.html
The RC0 is
this release has been tested on fairly large
> clusters, production users can wait for a subsequent point release which
> will contain fixes from further stabilization and downstream adoption."
>
> Hope this suffices.
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 10:30 AM, Konst
Hey guys,
I don't think this has been discussed, pardon if it was.
As it stands today hadoop 2.9.0 is marked as stable release. Isn't that
deceptive for users?
Not to diminish the quality and not to understate the effort, which was
huge and very much appreciated.
But it is the first in the
I would consider these two blockers for 2.8.3 as they crash NN:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HDFS-12638
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HDFS-12832
Thanks,
--Konstantin
On Tue, Nov 21, 2017 at 11:16 AM, Junping Du wrote:
> Thanks Andrew and Wangda for
and above, I would want to be more
> cautious about it.
>
> On Thu, Nov 16, 2017 at 5:20 PM, Konstantin Shvachko <shv.had...@gmail.com
> > wrote:
>
>> Hi developers,
>>
>> We have accumulated about 30 commits on branch-2.7. Those are mostly
>> valuable bug fixes,
Hi developers,
We have accumulated about 30 commits on branch-2.7. Those are mostly
valuable bug fixes, minor optimizations and test corrections. I would like
to propose to make a quick maintenance release 2.7.5.
If there are no objections I'll start preparations.
Thanks,
--Konstantin
gt; that explains a design for scaling HDFS and how Ozone paves the way
> towards the full solution.
>
>
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/attachment/
> 12895963/HDFS%20Scalability%20and%20Ozone.pdf
>
>
> sanjay
>
>
>
>
> On Oct 28, 2017, at 2:00 PM, Konstan
Hey guys,
It is an interesting question whether Ozone should be a part of Hadoop.
There are two main reasons why I think it should not.
1. With close to 500 sub-tasks, with 6 MB of code changes, and with a
sizable community behind, it looks to me like a whole new project.
It is essentially a new
trol for who can change what configurations.
> - The configuration storage backend is also pluggable. Currently an
> in-memory, leveldb, and zookeeper implementation are supported.
>
> There were 15 subtasks completed for this feature.
>
> Huge thanks to everyone who helped with reviews
Thursday, August 3, 2017, 7:19:07 AM CDT, Sunil G <sun...@apache.org>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks Konstantin
>>>
>>> +1 (binding)
>>>
>>> 1. Build tar ball from source package
>>> 2. Ran basic MR jobs and verif
://wiki.apache.org/hadoop/HowToReleasePreDSBCR#Publishing
Thanks,
--Konst
On Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 11:36 PM, Akira Ajisaka <aajis...@apache.org> wrote:
> Thanks Konstantin for the work!
> I have a question: Where are the maven artifacts deployed?
>
> -Akira
>
> On 2017/07/30 8
It does not. Just adding historical references, as Andrew raised the
question.
On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 7:38 PM, Allen Wittenauer <a...@effectivemachines.com>
wrote:
>
> ... that doesn't contradict anything I said.
>
> > On Jul 31, 2017, at 7:23 PM, Konstantin Shvachko
The issue was discussed on several occasions in the past.
Took me a while to dig this out as an example:
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/hadoop-general/20.mbox/%3C4EB0827C.6040204%40apache.org%3E
Doug Cutting:
"Folks should not primarily evaluate binaries when voting. The ASF
Uploaded new binaries hadoop-2.7.4-RC0.tar.gz, which adds lib/native/.
Same place: http://home.apache.org/~shv/hadoop-2.7.4-RC0/
Thanks,
--Konstantin
On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 3:56 PM, Chris Douglas <cdoug...@apache.org> wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 3:02 PM, Konstantin Shvachko
&
egal/release-policy.html goes into this in more
> detail. A release must minimally include source packages, and can also
> include binary artifacts.
>
> Best,
> Andrew
>
> On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 12:30 PM, Konstantin Shvachko <
> shv.had...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> T
anyways, so no worries there.
I think though it would be useful to have it working for testing and as a
packaging standard.
Thanks,
--Konstantin
On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 11:40 AM, Allen Wittenauer <a...@effectivemachines.com
> wrote:
>
> > On Jul 31, 2017, at 11:20 AM, Konstantin Sh
/jmx, /conf, /logLevel, and /stacks. It passed in branch-2.8.
>
>
> On Sat, Jul 29, 2017 at 4:29 PM, Konstantin Shvachko <shv.had...@gmail.com
> > wrote:
>
>> Hi everybody,
>>
>> Here is the next release of Apache Hadoop 2.7 line. The previous stable
>>
5 messagebus 4096 Jul 30 03:01 src
>
>
>
> --Brahma Reddy Battula
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Konstantin Shvachko [mailto:shv.had...@gmail.com]
> Sent: 30 July 2017 07:29
> To: common-...@hadoop.apache.org; hdfs-...@hadoop.apache.org;
> mapreduce-dev@hadoop.a
Hi everybody,
Here is the next release of Apache Hadoop 2.7 line. The previous stable
release 2.7.3 was available since 25 August, 2016.
Release 2.7.4 includes 264 issues fixed after release 2.7.3, which are
critical bug fixes and major optimizations. See more details in Release
Note:
Thanks,
--Konst
sues.apache.
> org/jira/browse/HDFS-11742 definitely was something that was deemed a
> blocker for 2.8.2, not sure about 2.7.4.
>
> I’m ‘back’ - let me know if you need any help.
>
> Thanks
> +Vinod
>
> On Jul 13, 2017, at 5:45 PM, Konstantin Shvachko <shv.had...@gmail.com>
&
on branch-2.7.
Could anybody please take a look and help fixing the build.
This would be very helpful for the release (2.7.4) process.
Thanks,
--Konst
On Mon, Jul 24, 2017 at 10:41 PM, Konstantin Shvachko <shv.had...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Or should we backport the entire HADOOP-11917
more testing is still going on.
I plan to build an RC next week. If there are no objection.
Thanks,
--Konst
On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 4:42 PM, Konstantin Shvachko <shv.had...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Hey guys.
>
> An update on 2.7.4 progress.
> We are down to 4 blockers. There is s
ps://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/HADOOP/Hadoop+2.7.4
>>>
>>> If you want to edit this wiki, please ping me.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Akira
>>>
>>>
>>> On 2017/05/23 4:42, Brahma Reddy Battula wrote
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MAPREDUCE-6890?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Konstantin Shvachko resolved MAPREDUCE-6890.
Resolution: Duplicate
[~redvine] ooks like [~elgoiri] beat you.
Closing
at 2:30 PM, Konstantin Shvachko <shv.had...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Hey Akira,
>
> I didn't have private filters. Most probably Jira caches something.
> Your filter is in the right direction, but for some reason it lists only
> 22 issues, while mine has 29.
> It miss
works fine: https://s.apache.org/Dzg4
> I couldn't see the link. Maybe is it private filter?
>
> Here is a link I generated: https://s.apache.org/ehKy
> This filter includes resolved issue and excludes fixversion == 2.7.4
>
> Thanks and Regards,
> Akira
>
> On 2017/05/08 19:20, Kon
ersion to fix vulnerability in old versions
>
>
>
> Regards
> Brahma Reddy Battula
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Erik Krogen [mailto:ekro...@linkedin.com.INVALID]
> Sent: 06 May 2017 02:40
> To: Konstantin Shvachko
> Cc: Zhe Zhang; Hadoop Common; Hdfs-dev; mapreduce-
> On Wed, May 3, 2017 at 12:42 AM Konstantin Shvachko <shv.had...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Hey guys,
>>
>> I and a few of my colleagues would like to help here and move 2.7.4
>> release
>> forward. A few points in this regard.
>>
>> 1. Re
Hey guys,
I and a few of my colleagues would like to help here and move 2.7.4 release
forward. A few points in this regard.
1. Reading through this thread since March 1 I see that Vinod hinted on
managing the release. Vinod, if you still want the job / have bandwidth
will be happy to work with
On Thu, Aug 4, 2016 at 11:20 AM, Andrew Wang <andrew.w...@cloudera.com>
wrote:
> Hi Konst, thanks for commenting,
>
> On Wed, Aug 3, 2016 at 11:29 PM, Konstantin Shvachko <shv.had...@gmail.com
> > wrote:
>
>> 1. I probably missed something but I didn't get
Sorry for bringing this up late.
I think we should pick up HDFS-9516 for this release.
Rather critical bug fix, but up to you, Vinod.
Thanks,
--Konst
On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 8:31 PM, Vinod Kumar Vavilapalli wrote:
> Hi all,
>
>
> I've created a release candidate RC0 for
Thank you Allen!
--Konst
On Tue, May 5, 2015 at 5:14 PM, Allen Wittenauer a...@altiscale.com wrote:
HDFS, MAPREDUCE, and YARN have been migrated.
Let me know of any issues and I’ll try to get to them as I can. This
should be the end of the Jenkins race conditions for our pre commits!
I don't think it makes sense to imprint the release quality with its
version.
They should be separate. And our recommendation for the quality can be
reflected in the documentation.
(1) is the way to go.
We had alpha imprinted in 2.0.5-alpha version, but both 2.0.5 and 2.0.6
releases were quite
Progress is good!
What are the four blockers?
Could you please mark them as such in the Jira.
Thanks,
--Konst
On Wed, Mar 25, 2015 at 9:53 AM, Vinod Kumar Vavilapalli
vino...@hortonworks.com wrote:
Progress has been really slow, but now we are down to four blockers across
the board.
I plan
Andrew,
Hadoop 3 seems in general like a good idea to me.
1. I did not understand if you propose to release 3.0 instead of 2.7 or in
addition?
I think 2.7 is needed at least as a stabilization step for the 2.x line.
2. If Hadoop 3 and 2.x are meant to exist together, we run a risk to
manifest
end up making
a small javadoc/documentation change in the last version of patch before
committing. It just avoids one more cycle and more delay. It's hard to
codify this distinction though.
Thanks
+Vinod
On Feb 27, 2015, at 1:04 PM, Konstantin Shvachko shv.had...@gmail.com
wrote
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MAPREDUCE-6228?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Konstantin Shvachko resolved MAPREDUCE-6228.
Resolution: Fixed
Fix Version/s: 2.7.0
Hadoop Flags
Konstantin Shvachko created MAPREDUCE-6227:
--
Summary: DFSIO for truncate
Key: MAPREDUCE-6227
URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MAPREDUCE-6227
Project: Hadoop Map/Reduce
Konstantin Shvachko created MAPREDUCE-6228:
--
Summary: Add truncate operation to SLive
Key: MAPREDUCE-6228
URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MAPREDUCE-6228
Project: Hadoop Map/Reduce
Hey devs,
This is to discuss whether new truncate feature should be ported to branch
2.
Colin suggested in HDFS-3071 that we merge it in a week or two. Makes sense
to me too.
That way we can get it out in one of the next releases.
Please raise your issues, concerns, or support here.
Do we need
+1
Thanks,
--Konstantin
On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 1:53 AM, Arun C Murthy a...@hortonworks.com wrote:
Folks,
As discussed, I'd like to call a vote on changing our by-laws to change
release votes from 7 days to 5.
I've attached the change to by-laws I'm proposing.
Please vote, the vote
Sorry for the last minute request.
Can we add HDFS-4858 to the release, please?
It solves pretty important bug related to failover.
I can commit momentarily if there are no objections.
Thanks,
--Konstantin
On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 4:50 PM, Aaron T. Myers a...@cloudera.com wrote:
Just committed
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MAPREDUCE-3469?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Konstantin Shvachko resolved MAPREDUCE-3469.
Resolution: Duplicate
Port to 0.22 - Implement limits on per-job
+1
Did the same as with rc0.
Works for me.
Thanks,
--Konst
On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 10:29 PM, Konstantin Boudnik c...@apache.org wrote:
All,
I have created a release candidate (rc1) for hadoop-2.0.6-alpha that I
would
like to release.
This is a stabilization release that includes fixed
+1
Verified checksums, signatures.
Checked release notes.
Built the sources and ran tests.
Started a small cluster.
Tried hadoop commands, ran a few jobs.
Thanks,
--Konst
On Sat, Aug 10, 2013 at 5:46 PM, Konstantin Boudnik c...@apache.org wrote:
All,
I have created a release candidate
Ok. After installing protobuf 2.5.0 I can compile trunk.
But now I cannot compile Hadoop-2 branches. None of them.
So if I switch between branches I need to reinstall protobuf?
Is there a consensus about going towards protobuf 2.5.0 upgrade in ALL
versions?
I did not get definite impression there
+1
Thanks,
--Konst
On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 12:51 PM, Konstantin Boudnik c...@apache.org wrote:
I have rolled out release candidate (rc2) for hadoop-2.0.5-alpha.
The difference between rc1 and rc2 is the optimistic release date is set
for
06/06/2013 in the CHANGES.txt files.
The binary
+1
I verified checksums, the signature, built sources on CentOS, ran tests and
a few hadoop commands.
Thanks,
--Konst
On Fri, May 24, 2013 at 8:48 PM, Konstantin Boudnik c...@apache.org wrote:
All,
I have created a release candidate (rc0) for hadoop-2.0.4.1-alpha that I
would
like to
Why not call this 2.0.5-alpha?
Technically, current branch-2 uses 2.0.5-SNAPSHOT and produces maven
artifacts with that version.
So having another version with the same numbers will be confusing.
Therefore 4-level numbers.
I thought I mentioned it to you before.
Thanks,
--Konst
On Thu, May
Sounds like a plan.
Thanks,
--Konst
On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 8:41 PM, Alejandro Abdelnur t...@cloudera.comwrote:
Konstantin, Cos,
As we change from 2.0.4.1 to 2.0.5 you'll need to do the following
housekeeping as you work the new RC.
* rename the svn branch
* update the versions in the
Hi Arun and Suresh,
I am glad my choice of words attracted your attention. I consider this
important for the project otherwise I wouldn't waste everybody's time.
You tend reacting on a latest message taken out of context, which does not
reveal full picture.
I'll try here to summarize my proposal
, Konstantin Shvachko wrote:
On Wed, May 1, 2013 at 1:15 PM, Arun C Murthy a...@hortonworks.com
wrote:
On Apr 30, 2013, at 4:28 PM, Konstantin Shvachko wrote:
If the next release has to be 2.0.5 I would like to make an alternative
proposal, which would include
- stabilization
On Thu, May 2, 2013 at 12:07 AM, Chris Douglas cdoug...@apache.org wrote:
Can anyone remember why we vote on release plans? -C
To vote on features to include in the release.
Thanks,
--Konstantin
If there are no objections, I'll start a vote on this proposal now.
Thanks,
--Konstantin
On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 4:28 PM, Konstantin Shvachko
shv.had...@gmail.comwrote:
Hi Arun,
I am agnostic about version numbers too, as long as the count goes up.
The discussion you are referring
On Wed, May 1, 2013 at 1:15 PM, Arun C Murthy a...@hortonworks.com wrote:
On Apr 30, 2013, at 4:28 PM, Konstantin Shvachko wrote:
If the next release has to be 2.0.5 I would like to make an alternative
proposal, which would include
- stabilization of current 2.0.4
- making all API
to be
very productive.
Thanks,
--Konstantin
On Fri, Apr 26, 2013 at 6:06 PM, Arun C Murthy a...@hortonworks.com wrote:
Konstantin,
On Apr 26, 2013, at 4:34 PM, Konstantin Shvachko wrote:
Do you think we can call the version you proposed to release
2.1.0 or 2.1.0-beta?
The proposed new
Arun,
Could you please define the release plan and put it into vote.
In accordance with the ByLaws. After this discussion of course.
http://hadoop.apache.org/bylaws.html
Release Plan
Defines the timetable and actions for a release. The plan also nominates a
Release Manager.
Lazy majority of
Arun, Suresh,
Very exciting to hear about this final push to stable Hadoop 2.
But I have a problem. Either with the plan or with the version number.
I'll be arguing for the number change below rather than the plan.
1. Based on features listed by Suresh it looks that you plan a heavy
feature-full
, 2013 at 5:00 PM, Konstantin Shvachko
shv.had...@gmail.comwrote:
+1 on the merge.
I am glad we agreed.
Having Jira to track the CI effort is a good idea.
Thanks,
--Konstantin
On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 3:29 PM, Matt Foley mfo...@hortonworks.com
wrote:
Thanks. I agree
of these requirements. Please give me
owner feedback as to whether my proposed work sounds like it will satisfy
the requirements.
Thank you,
--Matt
On Sun, Mar 3, 2013 at 12:16 PM, Konstantin Shvachko shv.had...@gmail.com
wrote:
Didn't I explain in details what I am asking for?
Thanks
1 - 100 of 138 matches
Mail list logo