[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/YARN-6593?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=16110036#comment-16110036
]
Jian He commented on YARN-6593:
-------------------------------
bq. Examples are essential, but can that be part of a followup JIRA?
Particularly since the implementation(s) may affect the API.
sure, no problem with that.
Actually, what's being done in YARN-6594 may also affect this jira's
implementation:
Regarding container tags, IMO, there are two types of tags.
1) Ones for scheduling decisions which is done by this umberlla jira. (This is
modeled as single value in current patch )
2) Ones for annotating metaInfo for container, which this umberlla jira
originally didn't cover.
Right now 1) is modeled as a single value. For 2), I expect it to be a
key/value pair to support various use-case.
Question is whether we should model both as key/value pairs for consistency. I
checked with Wangda, we prefer it to be the same for consistency user
experience. Btw, Kubernetes also models both as key/value pairs.
> [API] Introduce Placement Constraint object
> -------------------------------------------
>
> Key: YARN-6593
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/YARN-6593
> Project: Hadoop YARN
> Issue Type: Sub-task
> Reporter: Konstantinos Karanasos
> Assignee: Konstantinos Karanasos
> Attachments: YARN-6593.001.patch, YARN-6593.002.patch,
> YARN-6593.003.patch, YARN-6593.004.patch, YARN-6593.005.patch,
> YARN-6593.006.patch, YARN-6593.007.patch, YARN-6593.008.patch
>
>
> Just removed Fixed version and moved it to target version as we set fix
> version only after patch is committed.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.4.14#64029)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: yarn-issues-unsubscr...@hadoop.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: yarn-issues-h...@hadoop.apache.org
