Hi,
On Sat, Mar 21, 2009 at 12:28 PM, Jukka Zitting wrote:
> To be accurate, the source release *is* the collection of bits that
> the release manager is using to produce binaries and other release
> artifacts. It's just a packaged svn export of the release tag.
Or, to express this in another wa
Hi,
On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 1:10 PM, Andrzej Bialecki wrote:
> Yes, sorry for not being more explicit - my proposal was for 1.1, I think
> 1.0 has to go out as it is (and I'd even hesitate to create a source-only
> release now - we would have to test that it's still buildable and fully
> function
Doğacan Güney wrote:
On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 23:46, Sami Siren wrote:
Sami Siren wrote:
Andrzej Bialecki wrote:
How about the following: we build just 2 packages:
* binary: this includes only base hadoop libs in lib/ (enough to start a
local job, no optional filesystems etc), the *.job and *
On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 23:46, Sami Siren wrote:
> Sami Siren wrote:
>>
>> Andrzej Bialecki wrote:
>>>
>>> How about the following: we build just 2 packages:
>>>
>>> * binary: this includes only base hadoop libs in lib/ (enough to start a
>>> local job, no optional filesystems etc), the *.job and
Sami Siren wrote:
Andrzej Bialecki wrote:
How about the following: we build just 2 packages:
* binary: this includes only base hadoop libs in lib/ (enough to start
a local job, no optional filesystems etc), the *.job and *.war files
and scripts. Scripts would check for the presence of plugins
Eric J. Christeson wrote:
On Mar 19, 2009, at 12:03 PM, Sami Siren wrote:
Andrzej Bialecki wrote:
How about the following: we build just 2 packages:
* binary: this includes only base hadoop libs in lib/ (enough to
start a local job, no optional filesystems etc), the *.job and *.war
files an
Hello,
I didn't know wher to put it it's linked to thread about future of nutch
a bit.
As a non developer but more user my idea - maybe make as easy as
possible to make "first steps" and than move forward to distributed nutch?
It seems that users of nutch are in 2 groups:
first - "windows"
On Mar 19, 2009, at 12:03 PM, Sami Siren wrote:
Andrzej Bialecki wrote:
How about the following: we build just 2 packages:
* binary: this includes only base hadoop libs in lib/ (enough to
start a local job, no optional filesystems etc), the *.job and
*.war files and scripts. Scripts would
Andrzej Bialecki wrote:
How about the following: we build just 2 packages:
* binary: this includes only base hadoop libs in lib/ (enough to start a
local job, no optional filesystems etc), the *.job and *.war files and
scripts. Scripts would check for the presence of plugins/ dir, and offer
a
The source package is straight forward one. Size of source package
would be about 30GB. but the binary package will still remain quite
big if we
Now, this is big, indeed ;)
heh, some serious software, need to buy more disc just to download it
(yes I was thinking of M not G)
Sami Siren wrote:
Andrzej Bialecki wrote:
Sami Siren wrote:
Jukka Zitting was suggesting we should rethink the Nutch release
packaging because of it's size. I don't see this as a blocker for 1.0
but we could perhaps start the discussion about this anyway so throw
in your opinions...
I agr
Andrzej Bialecki wrote:
Sami Siren wrote:
Jukka Zitting was suggesting we should rethink the Nutch release
packaging because of it's size. I don't see this as a blocker for 1.0
but we could perhaps start the discussion about this anyway so throw
in your opinions...
I agree with you and Juk
On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 16:48, Jukka Zitting wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 3:38 PM, Andrzej Bialecki wrote:
>> (anyway, what's a measly 90MB nowadays .. ;)
>
> It's a pretty long download unless you have a fast connection and a
> nearby mirror.
>
I agree. Can't we also do a source-onl
Hi,
On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 3:38 PM, Andrzej Bialecki wrote:
> (anyway, what's a measly 90MB nowadays .. ;)
It's a pretty long download unless you have a fast connection and a
nearby mirror.
BR,
Jukka Zitting
On Mar 19, 2009, at 8:48 AM, Sami Siren wrote:
Jukka Zitting was suggesting we should rethink the Nutch release
packaging because of it's size. I don't see this as a blocker for
1.0 but we could perhaps start the discussion about this anyway so
throw in your opinions...
+1 for both bin
Sami Siren wrote:
Jukka Zitting was suggesting we should rethink the Nutch release
packaging because of it's size. I don't see this as a blocker for 1.0
but we could perhaps start the discussion about this anyway so throw in
your opinions...
I agree with you and Jukka that we should provide
Jukka Zitting was suggesting we should rethink the Nutch release
packaging because of it's size. I don't see this as a blocker for 1.0
but we could perhaps start the discussion about this anyway so throw in
your opinions...
the related snippet from email discussion:
Sami Siren wrote:
> Juk
17 matches
Mail list logo
