Hi Arun, Would it be possible to include YARN-1056 in the next RC - it is a straight-forward config change. I marked it as a blocker for 2.1.0.
Thanks Karthik On Thu, Aug 8, 2013 at 8:14 AM, Kihwal Lee <kih...@yahoo-inc.com> wrote: > Another blocker, HADOOP-9850, has been committed. > > > Kihwal > > > ________________________________ > From: Arun C Murthy <a...@hortonworks.com> > To: Daryn Sharp <da...@yahoo-inc.com> > Cc: "<hdfs-...@hadoop.apache.org>" <hdfs-...@hadoop.apache.org>; " > mapreduce-...@hadoop.apache.org" <mapreduce-...@hadoop.apache.org>; " > yarn-...@hadoop.apache.org" <yarn-...@hadoop.apache.org>; " > common-dev@hadoop.apache.org" <common-dev@hadoop.apache.org> > Sent: Thursday, August 1, 2013 1:30 PM > Subject: Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Hadoop 2.1.0-beta > > > Ok, thanks for heads up Daryn. I'll spin an RC2 once HADOOP-9816 gets in - > I'd appreciate if you could help push the fix in ASAP. > > Thanks again! > > Arun > > On Aug 1, 2013, at 9:38 AM, Daryn Sharp <da...@yahoo-inc.com> wrote: > > > I broke RPC QOP for integrity and privacy options. :( See blocker > HADOOP-9816. I think I understand the problem and it shouldn't be hard to > fix. > > > > The bug went unnoticed because sadly there are no unit tests for the QOP > options, even though it just involves a conf setting. > > > > Daryn > > > > > > On Jul 29, 2013, at 5:00 PM, Arun C Murthy wrote: > > > >> Ok, I think we are close to rc1 now - the last of blockers should be > committed later today… I'll try and spin RC1 tonight. > >> > >> thanks, > >> Arun > >> > >> On Jul 21, 2013, at 12:43 AM, Devaraj Das <d...@hortonworks.com> wrote: > >> > >>> I have just raised https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HDFS-5016 .. > This > >>> bug can easily be reproduced by some HBase tests. I'd like this to be > >>> considered before we make a beta release. Have spoken about this with > some > >>> hdfs folks offline and I am told that it is being worked on. > >>> > >>> Thanks > >>> Devaraj > >>> > >>> > >>> On Wed, Jul 17, 2013 at 4:25 PM, Alejandro Abdelnur <tuc...@gmail.com > >wrote: > >>> > >>>> As I've mentioned in my previous email, if we get YARN-701 in, we > should > >>>> also get in the fix for unmanaged AMs in an un-secure setup in > 2.1.0-beta. > >>>> Else is a regression of a functionality it is already working. > >>>> > >>>> Because of that, to avoid continuing delaying the release, I'm > suggesting > >>>> to mention in the release notes the API changes and behavior changes > that > >>>> YARN-918 and YARN-701 will bring into the next beta or GA release. > >>>> > >>>> thx > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> On Wed, Jul 17, 2013 at 4:14 PM, Vinod Kumar Vavilapalli < > >>>> vino...@hortonworks.com> wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> On Jul 17, 2013, at 1:04 PM, Alejandro Abdelnur wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>>> * YARN-701 > >>>>>> > >>>>>> It should be addressed before a GA release. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Still, as it is this breaks unmanaged AMs and to me > >>>>>> that would be a blocker for the beta. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> YARN-701 and the unmanaged AMs fix should be committed > >>>>>> in tandem. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> * YARN-918 > >>>>>> > >>>>>> It is a consequence of YARN-701 and depends on it. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> YARN-918 is an API change. And YARN-701 is a behaviour change. We > need > >>>>> both in 2.1.0. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>> * YARN-926 > >>>>>> > >>>>>> It would be nice to have it addressed before GA release. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> Either ways. I'd get it in sooner than later specifically when we are > >>>>> trying to replace the old API with the new one. > >>>>> > >>>>> Thanks, > >>>>> +Vino > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>> > >> > >> -- > >> Arun C. Murthy > >> Hortonworks Inc. > >> http://hortonworks.com/ > >> > >> > > > > -- > Arun C. Murthy > Hortonworks Inc. > http://hortonworks.com/ >
