Hi Roman, Do you have a proposed patch? If so I would be happy to include it.
Thanks, --Matt On Wed, Nov 23, 2011 at 5:14 PM, Roman Shaposhnik <r...@apache.org> wrote: > Hi Matt, > > quick question: any reason we are ignoring multifilewc from hadoop > examples? > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MAPREDUCE-3319 > > would be nice to fix it for 1.0 of Hadoop. Or at least disable. > > Thanks, > Roman. > > On Wed, Nov 23, 2011 at 2:56 PM, Matt Foley <ma...@apache.org> wrote: > > I really want this in 0.20.205.1, which will be Hadoop 1.0.0, because of > > its importance for > > good support of HBase. > > > > Jitendra, please merge it to branch-0.20-security-205. > > > > --Matt (wearing my Apache release manager hat) > > > > > > On Wed, Nov 23, 2011 at 11:14 AM, Suresh Srinivas < > sur...@hortonworks.com>wrote: > > > >> +1 for Jitendra's proposal. > >> > >> Additionally, most of the core of the code that this patch is based on > has > >> been tested and deployed in clusters at TrendMicro and Facebook. > >> > >> On Wed, Nov 23, 2011 at 11:10 AM, Jitendra Pandey > >> <jiten...@hortonworks.com>wrote: > >> > >> > The trunk, 206 patches for HDFS-2246 have been committed. I think it > >> makes > >> > sense to commit it to 205.1 as well for following reasons (most of it > has > >> > already been mentioned) > >> > a) We intended this patch for 205, but couldn't finish in time. Now > that > >> > 205.1 branch is still not cut, we could get this in. > >> > b) This is not a very risky change. Most of it is new code and will be > >> > disabled by default the feature will be disabled. > >> > c) The performance benefits are very good, as reported by Todd on the > >> jira. > >> > Hbase installations will significantly benefit from it. > >> > > >> > On Mon, Nov 14, 2011 at 1:44 PM, Todd Lipcon <t...@cloudera.com> > wrote: > >> > > >> > > On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 2:29 PM, Todd Lipcon <t...@cloudera.com> > >> wrote: > >> > > > On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 1:29 AM, Matt Foley < > mfo...@hortonworks.com> > >> > > wrote: > >> > > > > >> > > >> > >> > > >> Also, I believe in the HDFS-2246 Jira, Todd requested extra time > to > >> > > review, > >> > > >> due to commitments at Hadoop World. Todd, would Monday be > >> sufficient > >> > > extra > >> > > >> time, so as not to slow down the anticipated release schedule too > >> > much? > >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > > > Yes, I will probably have time to review it by Monday. But the > >> > > > review-time concern is separate from the concern about which > version > >> > > > this should go into. > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > Reviewing this now... though I still think it shoudl target > 0.20.206, > >> > > not 0.20.205.1. > >> > > > >> > > -Todd > >> > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > >> > > >> On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 10:31 PM, Eli Collins <e...@cloudera.com> > >> > wrote: > >> > > >> > >> > > >>> Hey guys, > >> > > >>> > >> > > >>> HDFS-2246 is not a fix, it's a non-trivial performance > >> optimization. > >> > > >>> The roadmap page is pretty clear.. "Point releases are made to > fix > >> > > >>> critical bugs. They do not introduce new features or make other > >> > > >>> improvements other than fixing bugs". > >> > > >>> > >> > > >>> I'm not opposed to the change, I'm just pointing out that we > agreed > >> > to > >> > > >>> develop trunk first, and we agreed to follow the release > policies > >> for > >> > > >>> the sustaining branch. I don't see why we can't honor those > >> > > >>> agreements, ie why not post a patch for trunk first and then > >> backport > >> > > >>> it to 206? Reasonable? > >> > > >>> > >> > > >>> Thanks, > >> > > >>> Eli > >> > > >>> > >> > > >>> On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 9:58 PM, Suresh Srinivas < > >> > > sur...@hortonworks.com> > >> > > >>> wrote: > >> > > >>> > Eli, > >> > > >>> > > >> > > >>> > As Jitendra indicated in the jira, this was originally > supposed > >> to > >> > be > >> > > >>> part > >> > > >>> > of 0.205. Due to time crunc, we could not get this done in > 0.205. > >> > > This > >> > > >>> can > >> > > >>> > be turned off by a flag and only can be enabled by users who > want > >> > to > >> > > use > >> > > >>> > the functionality. Given that, I feel it is okay to go into > >> > 0.205.1. > >> > > >>> > > >> > > >>> > I agree it would be good to have a trunk patch for this and > make > >> it > >> > > part > >> > > >>> of > >> > > >>> > 0.23. > >> > > >>> > > >> > > >>> > Regards, > >> > > >>> > Suresh > >> > > >>> > > >> > > >>> > On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 4:32 PM, Eli Collins < > e...@cloudera.com> > >> > > wrote: > >> > > >>> > > >> > > >>> >> Hey Matt, > >> > > >>> >> > >> > > >>> >> Is HDFS-2246 slated for 0.20.205.1? Given that it's not a > bug > >> and > >> > > is > >> > > >>> >> non-trivial it seems better suited for 206 than a point > release. > >> > > Also, > >> > > >>> >> per the sustaining roadmap - > >> > http://wiki.apache.org/hadoop/Roadmap- > >> > > >>> >> "Only functionality already committed to trunk should be > >> submitted > >> > > to > >> > > >>> >> a sustaining release." and this functionality does not yet > have > >> a > >> > > >>> >> patch for trunk yet (let alone committed). > >> > > >>> >> > >> > > >>> >> Thanks, > >> > > >>> >> Eli > >> > > >>> >> > >> > > >>> >> On Fri, Nov 4, 2011 at 5:56 PM, Matt Foley <ma...@apache.org > > > >> > > wrote: > >> > > >>> >> > Hi all, > >> > > >>> >> > I propose to make a 0.20.205.1 candidate soon, with the > >> > following > >> > > >>> sets of > >> > > >>> >> > patches: > >> > > >>> >> > > >> > > >>> >> > - deficiencies in HBase support, pointed out by the HBase > >> team > >> > > and > >> > > >>> >> others > >> > > >>> >> > - deficiencies in webhdfs support on secure clusters > >> > > >>> >> > - a couple last-minute fixes submitted to > >> > > branch-0.20-security-205 > >> > > >>> that > >> > > >>> >> > were too late to be included in 205.0 > >> > > >>> >> > > >> > > >>> >> > If you would like other patches included, and you feel it > is > >> > > >>> appropriate > >> > > >>> >> to > >> > > >>> >> > have them in 205.1 rather than waiting for 206.0, please > >> declare > >> > > them > >> > > >>> by > >> > > >>> >> > setting the "Target Versions" field in their Jiras, and > they > >> > will > >> > > >>> receive > >> > > >>> >> > due consideration, assuming that the proposed patch is > >> actually > >> > > >>> >> > contributed, tested, reviewed, approved, and committed > >> > > >>> >> > to branch-0.20-security-205 by the freeze date :-) > >> > > >>> >> > > >> > > >>> >> > I would like to make the rc0 candidate next Friday, so I > >> propose > >> > > to > >> > > >>> >> declare > >> > > >>> >> > 205.1 code freeze at noon, PST, Friday 11 Nov. If this is > a > >> > > problem > >> > > >>> for > >> > > >>> >> > anyone, please let me know. > >> > > >>> >> > > >> > > >>> >> > Thank you, and best regards, > >> > > >>> >> > --Matt (Release Manager) > >> > > >>> >> > > >> > > >>> >> > >> > > >>> > > >> > > >>> > >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > -- > >> > > > Todd Lipcon > >> > > > Software Engineer, Cloudera > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > -- > >> > > Todd Lipcon > >> > > Software Engineer, Cloudera > >> > > > >> > > >> > > >
