Thanks Brock. I'll have a look at what we'd need to do to use the maven release plugin. I have used it before and I do like it.
I will also go through the open JIRAs today and make sure there are no others that should be marked as blockers before this next release. Cheers Dave On 28 September 2012 19:40, Brock Noland <br...@cloudera.com> wrote: > Good call on all accounts! > > 1) I like the release plugin idea, just don't know anything about it. > > 2) I removed the incubator references and updated the site for SVN > deploy. Here http://www.apache.org/dev/release.html under "How do I > upload a release (newer way)?" describes the new deployment method. > > Brock > > On Fri, Sep 28, 2012 at 1:02 PM, Bertrand Dechoux <decho...@gmail.com> wrote: >> I guess it has maybe already been tried but the maven release plugin is >> good. But I wouldn't have now the time to verify if all the steps could be >> done that way. Maybe for a future release? >> >> One trivial mistake : >> Put in a Infrastructure JIRA >> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA> asking >> to get added to the incubator unix group on people.apache.org and the >> mrunit deployer roler for Nexus >> >> I guess the 'incubator' is not needed even though I have never opened an >> infrastructure JIRA so I don't know if there is a different unix group for >> graduated projects. >> >> Regards >> >> Bertrand >> >> On Fri, Sep 28, 2012 at 7:30 PM, Brock Noland <br...@cloudera.com> wrote: >> >>> OK, I have updated the release documents. >>> http://mrunit.apache.org/pmc/how_to_release.html >>> >>> I think that should be correct, but anyone with a little git knowledge >>> might want to double check. >>> >>> Brock >>> >>> On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 5:36 PM, James Kinley <kin...@cloudera.com> wrote: >>> > I can probably take a look at 111 next week, but I wouldn't want it to >>> hold up Dave with the release. >>> > >>> > Thanks, James. >>> > >>> > On 27 Sep 2012, at 15:01, Jim Donofrio wrote: >>> > >>> >> When did you hope to cut a release candidate? >>> >> >>> >> We also need to go through the open tickets to see what can wait, Brock >>> has MRUNIT-136 as a blocker. Sorry for not contributing in awhile but I >>> need to fix some javadoc for 101,114,115. It would also be nice if someone >>> did 111 for this release because we really should be using the release >>> plugin, makes the whole process a lot easier. >>> >> >>> >> On 09/26/2012 11:45 AM, Brock Noland wrote: >>> >>> OK that seems like a bargain! :) I'll work on updating the >>> >>> instructions to what I think they should be (based on the experience >>> >>> of the last few releases). >>> >>> >>> >>> Thanks! >>> >>> Brock >>> >>> >>> >>> On Wed, Sep 26, 2012 at 10:42 AM, Dave Beech <d...@paraliatech.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> The instructions also mention "incubator" quite heavily. I'd be happy >>> >>>> to do the release (but only if the instructions get fixed first!!) >>> >>>> >>> >>>> On 26 September 2012 16:39, Brock Noland <br...@cloudera.com> wrote: >>> >>>>> I suppose this will be the first release using git so the >>> instructions >>> >>>>> will have to be updated... >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> On Wed, Sep 26, 2012 at 10:37 AM, Brock Noland <br...@cloudera.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>>>> Hi, >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> It's not a ton of work once you have done it, but the first time it >>> >>>>>> can take some time. >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> 1) Making sure we have the changes we said we would have in this >>> release >>> >>>>>> a) This release was contingent on a JIRA >>> >>>>>> b) Ensuring the FIXED IN field in JIRA is correct >>> >>>>>> 2) Executing the instructions here >>> >>>>>> http://mrunit.apache.org/pmc/how_to_release.html >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> Since we are a smaller project #1 is pretty easy. For projects like >>> >>>>>> Hadoop #1 is a huge undertaking. For us, the real work is setting up >>> >>>>>> your GPG keys and getting maven to deploy the jars correctly. >>> >>>>>> Everything outside of environmental conditions *should* be >>> documented >>> >>>>>> in the release page. >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> Since we are doing an incompatible change, we want to make sure the >>> >>>>>> release notes reflect this. We also typically write a blog article >>> >>>>>> (https://blogs.apache.org/mrunit/) and then ask Cloudera to >>> re-post. >>> >>>>>> In the past this has been about publicity for the project but this >>> >>>>>> time it's probably a little more important due to the >>> incompatibility. >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> Brock >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> On Wed, Sep 26, 2012 at 10:20 AM, Dave Beech <d...@paraliatech.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>>>>> Hi Brock - what's involved? I'm relatively new to the Apache >>> process >>> >>>>>>> but am willing to give it a go. >>> >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>> Cheers, >>> >>>>>>> Dave >>> >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>> On 26 September 2012 16:18, Brock Noland <br...@cloudera.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>>>>>> OK great, it sounds like the release is on! Does anyone want to >>> be the >>> >>>>>>>> Release Manager? I am more than willing to be the RM if no one >>> else >>> >>>>>>>> is interested, but as I have done it a few time times I won't >>> feel too >>> >>>>>>>> bad if someone else wants to. ;) >>> >>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>> Brock >>> >>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>> On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 7:28 AM, Jim Donofrio < >>> donofrio...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>>>>>>> I wont -1 it but I wont +1 it either. I would rather save major >>> revision >>> >>>>>>>>> changes for more drastic api changes but we need to cut this >>> release so I >>> >>>>>>>>> wont get in the way. Lets cut a release candidate on Oct 1 as we >>> talked >>> >>>>>>>>> about before. >>> >>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>> On 09/24/2012 04:55 AM, James Kinley wrote: >>> >>>>>>>>>> +1 to major release with MRUNIT-138. >>> >>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>> James. >>> >>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>> On 24 Sep 2012, at 09:21, Dave Beech <dbe...@apache.org> wrote: >>> >>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>> Hi Brock >>> >>>>>>>>>>> Same here - I would be happy to see a major version release >>> with >>> >>>>>>>>>>> MRUNIT-138 included. >>> >>>>>>>>>>> Cheers >>> >>>>>>>>>>> Dave >>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>> On 24 September 2012 07:35, Jarek Jarcec Cecho < >>> jar...@apache.org> wrote: >>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Brock, >>> >>>>>>>>>>>> thank you for your summary. I'm fine with the idea and I >>> won't -1 it. >>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Jarcec >>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, Sep 22, 2012 at 07:48:16AM -0500, Brock Noland wrote: >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> It feels like we approaching a consensus on that if we >>> include >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> MRUNIT-138, which is backwards incompatible but an improved >>> user API, >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> we should bump the major version. Assuming MRUNIT-138 is >>> included, is >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> there anyone that would -1 a release with the 1.0 >>> designation? >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Brock >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Sep 13, 2012 at 11:42 AM, Brock Noland < >>> br...@cloudera.com> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I agree that the changes in this release are not nearly as >>> substantial >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> as handling the Tool interface but I do they are major >>> improvements. >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> For example, we now allow users to specify many input >>> key/values and >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> have distributed cache support. For quick reference: >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://s.apache.org/NQY >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Brock >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Sep 13, 2012 at 8:16 AM, Jim Donofrio < >>> donofrio...@gmail.com> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes graduation has nothing to do with the quality or state >>> of the >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> code, >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> graduation is all about community and should not influence >>> a release >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> number. >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I agree that 1.0 would signal a breaking change but 1.0 >>> should also >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> signal >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> major improvements, api changes, new features. I dont >>> think this >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> release >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> contains any drastic features. I think we should continue >>> in the 0.* >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> versions for awhile until we add major new features such >>> as Tool >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> support. At >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that time you can change the package names to >>> org.apache.mrunit and >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> go to >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1.0. I would rather not become like Firefox or Chrome and >>> do major >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> release >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> number changes on every release. >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 09/13/2012 06:31 AM, Jarek Jarcec Cecho wrote: >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I do have similar reasoning here: >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1.0 - in case that we're breaking backward compatibility >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 0.10 - in case that we're not breaking backward >>> compatibility >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I personally do not see graduation of the project >>> important enough >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for the >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> version to jump to next major. We've recently graduated >>> sqoop and >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> flume and >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> remained on the same major version without any issues. >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But I'll support next reason no matter the final version. >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jarcec >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 11:41:08PM +0200, Bertrand >>> Dechoux wrote: >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And I would say the same in a reverse way. >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If we do a 1.0 release, all required incompatible >>> changes should be >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> done >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> so >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that there would be no need to drag unneeded deprecated >>> stuff from >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1.0 >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> up to the 2.0. >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For me, the question is whether we should break >>> compatibility for >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> next >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> release. If yes, then break all which is necessary for a >>> clean >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> future. If >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not, then assure full compatibility. If yes, it should >>> be 1.0. If >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not, it >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should be 0.10. >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The following question is then : if we keep >>> compatibility what will >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> next release ship with? Is a release worth the new >>> features/bug >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fixes? On >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that point, I am not knowledgeable enough to answer. I >>> would accept >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> decisions of the more 'ancient' devs. But it should >>> indeed be >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> discussed. >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards, >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bertrand >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 9:05 PM, Wei, Jianbin < >>> jianb...@paypal.com> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If it is an incompatible change in non-trivial way, I >>> would strong >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> favor a 1.0 release. >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards, >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -- Jianbin >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sep 12, 2012, at 10:01 AM, Brock Noland wrote: >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> OK, we have the following viewpoints with supporting >>> reasons: >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 0.10 - supported by a number of people (reasons: none >>> given, 1.0 >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should be used for Tool interface support) >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1.0 - supported by a number of people (reasons: none >>> given, recent >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> graduation, due to the incompatible change) >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I tilt towards the 1.0 release due to the incompatible >>> changes but >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> am not strongly committed to that viewpoint. I am >>> strongly >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> committed >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to a release whatever the number! :) It would seem easy >>> enough to >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> vote >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on the matter but I think votes can become divisive. I >>> have seen >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in the Hadoop community when voting is used to resolve >>> issues it >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ends >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> up much like the state of US politics. As such, I'd >>> prefer to >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> settle >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this via discussion. >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We have all stated our preferences but not our >>> convictions. Is >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anyone who strongly in favor of / opposed to a 0.10 >>> release? Is >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anyone who is strongly in favor of / opposed to a 1.0 >>> release? If >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> so >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> please state your reasoning. >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Brock >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Sep 7, 2012 at 11:50 AM, Wei, Jianbin >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <jianb...@paypal.com<mailto: >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jianb...@paypal.com>> wrote: >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Agree with Dave that when it becomes incompatible, the >>> major >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> version >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> number should be increased. Major changes also warrant >>> a major >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> number >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> change. >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards, >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -- Jianbin >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sep 7, 2012, at 8:06 AM, Brock Noland wrote: >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As I understand it, if we implement >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MRUNIT-138 as >>> described in >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> JIRA. That is, all the drivers keep state of the >>> inputs, we can >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> undeprecate the methods depcrecated in >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MRUNIT-64? >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Brock >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Sep 7, 2012 at 7:58 AM, Jim Donofrio >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <donofrio...@gmail.com >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <mailto:donofrio...@gmail.com>> wrote: >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think we need to keep those deprecated methods around >>> for >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> awhile, no >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reason to anger users. >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 09/07/2012 08:35 AM, Bertrand Dechoux wrote: >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Then the question is about when/if the compatibility >>> should be >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> broken. >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MRUNIT-139 would >>> be quite >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> easy >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> without the history of MRUnit and the @Deprecated.... >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Sep 7, 2012 at 2:19 PM, Dave Beech >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <d...@paraliatech.com<mailto: >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> d...@paraliatech.com>> wrote: >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think this depends on what we decide to do about >>> MRUNIT-138. We >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> were >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> discussing an incompatible change, and if we do decide >>> to do that >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> think >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the version number should increase to 1.0.0 to reflect >>> this (and >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> also >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fact that this is the first version since graduation). >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If we later go ahead with the API rewrite (MRUNIT-69), >>> this could >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> form >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> MRUnit 2.0.0! Would line up nicely with Hadoop's own >>> numbering >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> strategy >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ;) >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7 September 2012 07:54, James Kinley >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <kin...@cloudera.com<mailto: >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> kin...@cloudera.com>> wrote: >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +1 for the 1.0.0 release. I think it's a good idea to >>> increase the >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> major >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> version number considering the recent graduation and >>> the included >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> changes. >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7 Sep 2012, at 07:29, "Wei, Jianbin" >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <jianb...@paypal.com<mailto: >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jianb...@paypal.com>> wrote: >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> My bad, 0.9.0 --> 0.10.0 is also version increase. My >>> eyes are >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> used >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to have a 2 digits minor version yet. However, I still >>> prefer a >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> one-digit >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> minor version as most software do that in practice. >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards, >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -- Jianbin >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sep 6, 2012, at 10:41 PM, Bertrand Dechoux wrote: >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I am not sure to understand "It is not good to >>> backtracking >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> version.". >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Does it mean that the version after graduating should >>> show the >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 'step'? >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Is that a common way to do it? >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Not taking into account the graduation, I would also >>> favor the >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "0.10.0" >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> instead of "1.0.0". >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bertrand >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -- >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Apache MRUnit - Unit testing MapReduce - >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://incubator.apache.org/mrunit/ >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -- >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Apache MRUnit - Unit testing MapReduce - >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://incubator.apache.org/mrunit/ >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -- >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bertrand Dechoux >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> -- >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Apache MRUnit - Unit testing MapReduce - >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://incubator.apache.org/mrunit/ >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> -- >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Apache MRUnit - Unit testing MapReduce - >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> http://incubator.apache.org/mrunit/ >>> >>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>> -- >>> >>>>>>>> Apache MRUnit - Unit testing MapReduce - >>> http://incubator.apache.org/mrunit/ >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> -- >>> >>>>>> Apache MRUnit - Unit testing MapReduce - >>> http://incubator.apache.org/mrunit/ >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> -- >>> >>>>> Apache MRUnit - Unit testing MapReduce - >>> http://incubator.apache.org/mrunit/ >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >>> > >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Apache MRUnit - Unit testing MapReduce - >>> http://incubator.apache.org/mrunit/ >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Bertrand Dechoux > > > > -- > Apache MRUnit - Unit testing MapReduce - http://incubator.apache.org/mrunit/
