Agree w mark if there is at least one reason why you would want to package it ? ... Does anyone in bigtop community have any interest/ want to / still use whirr ?
It could still take up time of maintainers... In terms of testing , updating patch, confirming it for deb/centos/... > On Sep 5, 2014, at 2:02 PM, Mark Grover <[email protected]> wrote: > > That's likely going to be the outcome. > > However, I checked the build and it's failing on only one OS (SLES11) with > an error we have become familiar with. BIGTOP-1400 fixed that same error > earlier with Whirr. > > Given that the fix might be something simple as bumping up the permGen to > 512m, why don't we give that a shot first? > > If it's any more involved than that, I'd be personally be ok with dropping > it. > > Mark > > >> On Fri, Sep 5, 2014 at 10:55 AM, Andrew Purtell <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Pretty sure whirr is headed for the attic. >> >> >> On Fri, Sep 5, 2014 at 10:35 AM, Jay Vyas <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> -For packaging of whirr... I don't see activity on it lately. Are bigtop >>> folks using whirr? >>> >>> -for functionality of whirr, The bigtop-deploy/ recipes duplicate some >> of >>> whirrs functionality (we can add a vagrant-Ec2 recipe easily, I can help >> ) >>> >>> >>>> On Sep 4, 2014, at 11:23 PM, plinnell <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>> Cos mentioned in one of the jiras that whirr is failing to build and >>>> perhaps we should drop it. When whirr came out it was useful to >>>> orchestrate Hadoop into a cloud. >>>> >>>> Nowadays, there are a multitude of frameworks for deploying into >>>> clouds. Moreover, they are much more mature recently. >>>> >>>> Drop whirr ? >>>> >>>> Thoughts ? >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> Peter >> >> >> >> -- >> Best regards, >> >> - Andy >> >> Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet Hein >> (via Tom White) >>
