Hello Arun, Please accept my apologies for what could have been considered as a rude response. Didn't mean any sort of incivility. Please attribute my emotional response to the onus of explaining over and over again that - I am not opposed to the features - not forcing a release profile on you - but rather propose a more conservative release sequence with a focus on stability. in the last two weeks.
If the version rename we agreed upon earlier is still valid, please proceed. I am blocked on the rename of artifacts. I presume we can move this to dev. Thanks, --Konst On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 11:52 AM, Konstantin Shvachko <[email protected]>wrote: > Sounds like you are having fun, Arun. > 2.0.5 is explicitly in the subject line for this vote. > No worries I'll fix that. > > You should stop assuming - it's in nobody interests - and start reading. > --Konst > > > On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 11:10 AM, Arun C Murthy <[email protected]>wrote: > >> >> On May 14, 2013, at 11:04 AM, Konstantin Shvachko wrote: >> >> >> I can point you towards a set of fixes I think important for YARN >> > (nodemanager, security etc.). >> > >> > That would be very much appreciated. >> > >> >> I'll do the 2.1 series by renaming the planned 2.0.5 to 2.1. >> > >> > Thanks. >> > >> >> Thanks. I've copied branch-2.0.4-alpha as a new branch-2.0-alpha branch. >> >> This way you can start with a clean slate. Good luck. >> >> As I noted before in the thread, the APIs in branch-2.0-alpha will remain >> incompatible with branch-2. >> >> thanks, >> Arun > > >
