Apache Hadoop qbt Report: trunk+JDK8 on Linux/x86
For more details, see https://builds.apache.org/job/hadoop-qbt-trunk-java8-linux-x86/1442/ [Mar 17, 2020 1:31:48 PM] (github) HADOOP-16319. S3A Etag tests fail with default encryption enabled on - To unsubscribe, e-mail: mapreduce-dev-unsubscr...@hadoop.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: mapreduce-dev-h...@hadoop.apache.org
Re: [DISCUSS] Hadoop 3.3.0 Release include ARM binary
Making ARM artifact optional, makes the release process simpler for RM and unblocks release process (if there is unavailability of ARM resources). Still there are possible options to collaborate with RM ( as brahma mentioned earlier) and provide ARM artifact may be before or after vote. If feasible RM can decide to add ARM artifact by collaborating with @Brahma Reddy Battula or me to get the ARM artifact. -Vinay On Tue, Mar 17, 2020 at 11:39 PM Arpit Agarwal wrote: > Thanks for the clarification Brahma. Can you update the proposal to state > that it is optional (it may help to put the proposal on cwiki)? > > Also if we go ahead then the RM documentation should be clear this is an > optional step. > > > > On Mar 17, 2020, at 11:06 AM, Brahma Reddy Battula > wrote: > > > > Sure, we can't make mandatory while voting and we can upload to downloads > > once release vote is passed. > > > > On Tue, 17 Mar 2020 at 11:24 PM, Arpit Agarwal > > wrote: > > > >>> Sorry,didn't get you...do you mean, once release voting is > >>> processed and upload by RM..? > >> > >> Yes, that is what I meant. I don’t want us to make more mandatory work > for > >> the release manager because the job is hard enough already. > >> > >> > >>> On Mar 17, 2020, at 10:46 AM, Brahma Reddy Battula > >> wrote: > >>> > >>> Sorry,didn't get you...do you mean, once release voting is processed > and > >>> upload by RM..? > >>> > >>> FYI. There is docker image for ARM also which support all scripts > >>> (createrelease, start-build-env.sh, etc ). > >>> > >>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HADOOP-16797 > >>> > >>> On Tue, Mar 17, 2020 at 10:59 PM Arpit Agarwal > >>> wrote: > >>> > Can ARM binaries be provided after the fact? We cannot increase the > RM’s > burden by asking them to generate an extra set of binaries. > > > > On Mar 17, 2020, at 10:23 AM, Brahma Reddy Battula < > bra...@apache.org> > wrote: > > > > + Dev mailing list. > > > > -- Forwarded message - > > From: Brahma Reddy Battula > > Date: Tue, Mar 17, 2020 at 10:31 PM > > Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Hadoop 3.3.0 Release include ARM binary > > To: junping_du > > > > > > thanks junping for your reply. > > > > bq. I think most of us in Hadoop community doesn't want to have > biased > > on ARM or any other platforms. > > > > Yes, release voting will be based on the source code.AFAIK,Binary we > >> are > > providing for user to easy to download and verify. > > > > bq. The only thing I try to understand is how much complexity get > > involved for our RM work. Does that potentially become a blocker for > future > > releases? And how we can get rid of this risk. > > > > As I mentioned earlier, RM need to access the ARM machine(it will be > > donated and current qbt also using one ARM machine) and build tar > using > the > > keys. As it can be common machine, RM can delete his keys once > release > > approved. > > Can be sorted out as I mentioned earlier.(For accessing the ARM > >> machine) > > > > bq. If you can list the concrete work that RM need to do extra > >> for > > ARM release, that would help us to better understand. > > > > I can write and update for future reference. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Mar 17, 2020 at 10:41 AM 俊平堵 wrote: > > > >> Hi Brahma, > >> I think most of us in Hadoop community doesn't want to have biased > on > >> ARM or any other platforms. > >> The only thing I try to understand is how much complexity get > >> involved for our RM work. Does that potentially become a blocker for > future > >> releases? And how we can get rid of this risk. > >>If you can list the concrete work that RM need to do extra for > ARM > >> release, that would help us to better understand. > >> > >> Thanks, > >> > >> Junping > >> > >> Akira Ajisaka 于2020年3月13日周五 上午12:34写道： > >> > >>> If you can provide ARM release for future releases, I'm fine with > >> that. > >>> > >>> Thanks, > >>> Akira > >>> > >>> On Thu, Mar 12, 2020 at 9:41 PM Brahma Reddy Battula < > bra...@apache.org> > >>> wrote: > >>> > thanks Akira. > > Currently only problem is dedicated ARM for future RM.This i want > to > >>> sort > out like below,if you've some other,please let me know. > > i) Single machine and share cred to future RM ( as we can delete > >> keys > >>> once > release is over). > ii) Creating the jenkins project ( may be we need to discuss in > the > board..) > iii) I can provide ARM release for future releases. > > > > > > > > On Thu, Mar 12, 2020 at
Re: [DISCUSS] Hadoop 3.3.0 Release include ARM binary
Sure, I will update in cwiki,Once it's concluded here..Thanks a lot arpit... On Tue, Mar 17, 2020 at 11:39 PM Arpit Agarwal wrote: > Thanks for the clarification Brahma. Can you update the proposal to state > that it is optional (it may help to put the proposal on cwiki)? > > Also if we go ahead then the RM documentation should be clear this is an > optional step. > > > > On Mar 17, 2020, at 11:06 AM, Brahma Reddy Battula > wrote: > > > > Sure, we can't make mandatory while voting and we can upload to downloads > > once release vote is passed. > > > > On Tue, 17 Mar 2020 at 11:24 PM, Arpit Agarwal > > wrote: > > > >>> Sorry,didn't get you...do you mean, once release voting is > >>> processed and upload by RM..? > >> > >> Yes, that is what I meant. I don’t want us to make more mandatory work > for > >> the release manager because the job is hard enough already. > >> > >> > >>> On Mar 17, 2020, at 10:46 AM, Brahma Reddy Battula > >> wrote: > >>> > >>> Sorry,didn't get you...do you mean, once release voting is processed > and > >>> upload by RM..? > >>> > >>> FYI. There is docker image for ARM also which support all scripts > >>> (createrelease, start-build-env.sh, etc ). > >>> > >>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HADOOP-16797 > >>> > >>> On Tue, Mar 17, 2020 at 10:59 PM Arpit Agarwal > >>> wrote: > >>> > Can ARM binaries be provided after the fact? We cannot increase the > RM’s > burden by asking them to generate an extra set of binaries. > > > > On Mar 17, 2020, at 10:23 AM, Brahma Reddy Battula < > bra...@apache.org> > wrote: > > > > + Dev mailing list. > > > > -- Forwarded message - > > From: Brahma Reddy Battula > > Date: Tue, Mar 17, 2020 at 10:31 PM > > Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Hadoop 3.3.0 Release include ARM binary > > To: junping_du > > > > > > thanks junping for your reply. > > > > bq. I think most of us in Hadoop community doesn't want to have > biased > > on ARM or any other platforms. > > > > Yes, release voting will be based on the source code.AFAIK,Binary we > >> are > > providing for user to easy to download and verify. > > > > bq. The only thing I try to understand is how much complexity get > > involved for our RM work. Does that potentially become a blocker for > future > > releases? And how we can get rid of this risk. > > > > As I mentioned earlier, RM need to access the ARM machine(it will be > > donated and current qbt also using one ARM machine) and build tar > using > the > > keys. As it can be common machine, RM can delete his keys once > release > > approved. > > Can be sorted out as I mentioned earlier.(For accessing the ARM > >> machine) > > > > bq. If you can list the concrete work that RM need to do extra > >> for > > ARM release, that would help us to better understand. > > > > I can write and update for future reference. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Mar 17, 2020 at 10:41 AM 俊平堵 wrote: > > > >> Hi Brahma, > >> I think most of us in Hadoop community doesn't want to have biased > on > >> ARM or any other platforms. > >> The only thing I try to understand is how much complexity get > >> involved for our RM work. Does that potentially become a blocker for > future > >> releases? And how we can get rid of this risk. > >>If you can list the concrete work that RM need to do extra for > ARM > >> release, that would help us to better understand. > >> > >> Thanks, > >> > >> Junping > >> > >> Akira Ajisaka 于2020年3月13日周五 上午12:34写道： > >> > >>> If you can provide ARM release for future releases, I'm fine with > >> that. > >>> > >>> Thanks, > >>> Akira > >>> > >>> On Thu, Mar 12, 2020 at 9:41 PM Brahma Reddy Battula < > bra...@apache.org> > >>> wrote: > >>> > thanks Akira. > > Currently only problem is dedicated ARM for future RM.This i want > to > >>> sort > out like below,if you've some other,please let me know. > > i) Single machine and share cred to future RM ( as we can delete > >> keys > >>> once > release is over). > ii) Creating the jenkins project ( may be we need to discuss in > the > board..) > iii) I can provide ARM release for future releases. > > > > > > > > On Thu, Mar 12, 2020 at 5:14 PM Akira Ajisaka < > aajis...@apache.org> > >>> wrote: > > > Hi Brahma, > > > > I think we cannot do any of your proposed actions. > > > > > > >>> > > >> > http://www.apache.org/legal/release-policy.html#owned-controlled-hardware > >> Strictly speaking,
Re: [DISCUSS] Hadoop 3.3.0 Release include ARM binary
Thanks for the clarification Brahma. Can you update the proposal to state that it is optional (it may help to put the proposal on cwiki)? Also if we go ahead then the RM documentation should be clear this is an optional step. > On Mar 17, 2020, at 11:06 AM, Brahma Reddy Battula wrote: > > Sure, we can't make mandatory while voting and we can upload to downloads > once release vote is passed. > > On Tue, 17 Mar 2020 at 11:24 PM, Arpit Agarwal > wrote: > >>> Sorry,didn't get you...do you mean, once release voting is >>> processed and upload by RM..? >> >> Yes, that is what I meant. I don’t want us to make more mandatory work for >> the release manager because the job is hard enough already. >> >> >>> On Mar 17, 2020, at 10:46 AM, Brahma Reddy Battula >> wrote: >>> >>> Sorry,didn't get you...do you mean, once release voting is processed and >>> upload by RM..? >>> >>> FYI. There is docker image for ARM also which support all scripts >>> (createrelease, start-build-env.sh, etc ). >>> >>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HADOOP-16797 >>> >>> On Tue, Mar 17, 2020 at 10:59 PM Arpit Agarwal >>> wrote: >>> Can ARM binaries be provided after the fact? We cannot increase the RM’s burden by asking them to generate an extra set of binaries. > On Mar 17, 2020, at 10:23 AM, Brahma Reddy Battula wrote: > > + Dev mailing list. > > -- Forwarded message - > From: Brahma Reddy Battula > Date: Tue, Mar 17, 2020 at 10:31 PM > Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Hadoop 3.3.0 Release include ARM binary > To: junping_du > > > thanks junping for your reply. > > bq. I think most of us in Hadoop community doesn't want to have biased > on ARM or any other platforms. > > Yes, release voting will be based on the source code.AFAIK,Binary we >> are > providing for user to easy to download and verify. > > bq. The only thing I try to understand is how much complexity get > involved for our RM work. Does that potentially become a blocker for future > releases? And how we can get rid of this risk. > > As I mentioned earlier, RM need to access the ARM machine(it will be > donated and current qbt also using one ARM machine) and build tar using the > keys. As it can be common machine, RM can delete his keys once release > approved. > Can be sorted out as I mentioned earlier.(For accessing the ARM >> machine) > > bq. If you can list the concrete work that RM need to do extra >> for > ARM release, that would help us to better understand. > > I can write and update for future reference. > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Mar 17, 2020 at 10:41 AM 俊平堵 wrote: > >> Hi Brahma, >> I think most of us in Hadoop community doesn't want to have biased on >> ARM or any other platforms. >> The only thing I try to understand is how much complexity get >> involved for our RM work. Does that potentially become a blocker for future >> releases? And how we can get rid of this risk. >>If you can list the concrete work that RM need to do extra for ARM >> release, that would help us to better understand. >> >> Thanks, >> >> Junping >> >> Akira Ajisaka 于2020年3月13日周五 上午12:34写道： >> >>> If you can provide ARM release for future releases, I'm fine with >> that. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Akira >>> >>> On Thu, Mar 12, 2020 at 9:41 PM Brahma Reddy Battula < bra...@apache.org> >>> wrote: >>> thanks Akira. Currently only problem is dedicated ARM for future RM.This i want to >>> sort out like below,if you've some other,please let me know. i) Single machine and share cred to future RM ( as we can delete >> keys >>> once release is over). ii) Creating the jenkins project ( may be we need to discuss in the board..) iii) I can provide ARM release for future releases. On Thu, Mar 12, 2020 at 5:14 PM Akira Ajisaka >>> wrote: > Hi Brahma, > > I think we cannot do any of your proposed actions. > > >>> >> http://www.apache.org/legal/release-policy.html#owned-controlled-hardware >> Strictly speaking, releases must be verified on hardware owned and > controlled by the committer. That means hardware the committer has physical > possession and control of and exclusively full >>> administrative/superuser > access to. That's because only such hardware is qualified to hold a >>> PGP > private key, and the release should be verified on the machine the private > key lives on or on a
Re: [DISCUSS] Hadoop 3.3.0 Release include ARM binary
Sure, we can't make mandatory while voting and we can upload to downloads once release vote is passed. On Tue, 17 Mar 2020 at 11:24 PM, Arpit Agarwal wrote: > > Sorry,didn't get you...do you mean, once release voting is > > processed and upload by RM..? > > Yes, that is what I meant. I don’t want us to make more mandatory work for > the release manager because the job is hard enough already. > > > > On Mar 17, 2020, at 10:46 AM, Brahma Reddy Battula > wrote: > > > > Sorry,didn't get you...do you mean, once release voting is processed and > > upload by RM..? > > > > FYI. There is docker image for ARM also which support all scripts > > (createrelease, start-build-env.sh, etc ). > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HADOOP-16797 > > > > On Tue, Mar 17, 2020 at 10:59 PM Arpit Agarwal > > wrote: > > > >> Can ARM binaries be provided after the fact? We cannot increase the RM’s > >> burden by asking them to generate an extra set of binaries. > >> > >> > >>> On Mar 17, 2020, at 10:23 AM, Brahma Reddy Battula > >> wrote: > >>> > >>> + Dev mailing list. > >>> > >>> -- Forwarded message - > >>> From: Brahma Reddy Battula > >>> Date: Tue, Mar 17, 2020 at 10:31 PM > >>> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Hadoop 3.3.0 Release include ARM binary > >>> To: junping_du > >>> > >>> > >>> thanks junping for your reply. > >>> > >>> bq. I think most of us in Hadoop community doesn't want to have > >> biased > >>> on ARM or any other platforms. > >>> > >>> Yes, release voting will be based on the source code.AFAIK,Binary we > are > >>> providing for user to easy to download and verify. > >>> > >>> bq. The only thing I try to understand is how much complexity get > >>> involved for our RM work. Does that potentially become a blocker for > >> future > >>> releases? And how we can get rid of this risk. > >>> > >>> As I mentioned earlier, RM need to access the ARM machine(it will be > >>> donated and current qbt also using one ARM machine) and build tar using > >> the > >>> keys. As it can be common machine, RM can delete his keys once release > >>> approved. > >>> Can be sorted out as I mentioned earlier.(For accessing the ARM > machine) > >>> > >>> bq. If you can list the concrete work that RM need to do extra > for > >>> ARM release, that would help us to better understand. > >>> > >>> I can write and update for future reference. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> On Tue, Mar 17, 2020 at 10:41 AM 俊平堵 wrote: > >>> > Hi Brahma, > I think most of us in Hadoop community doesn't want to have biased > >> on > ARM or any other platforms. > The only thing I try to understand is how much complexity get > involved for our RM work. Does that potentially become a blocker for > >> future > releases? And how we can get rid of this risk. > If you can list the concrete work that RM need to do extra for ARM > release, that would help us to better understand. > > Thanks, > > Junping > > Akira Ajisaka 于2020年3月13日周五 上午12:34写道： > > > If you can provide ARM release for future releases, I'm fine with > that. > > > > Thanks, > > Akira > > > > On Thu, Mar 12, 2020 at 9:41 PM Brahma Reddy Battula < > >> bra...@apache.org> > > wrote: > > > >> thanks Akira. > >> > >> Currently only problem is dedicated ARM for future RM.This i want to > > sort > >> out like below,if you've some other,please let me know. > >> > >> i) Single machine and share cred to future RM ( as we can delete > keys > > once > >> release is over). > >> ii) Creating the jenkins project ( may be we need to discuss in the > >> board..) > >> iii) I can provide ARM release for future releases. > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> On Thu, Mar 12, 2020 at 5:14 PM Akira Ajisaka > > wrote: > >> > >>> Hi Brahma, > >>> > >>> I think we cannot do any of your proposed actions. > >>> > >>> > >> > > > >> > http://www.apache.org/legal/release-policy.html#owned-controlled-hardware > Strictly speaking, releases must be verified on hardware owned and > >>> controlled by the committer. That means hardware the committer has > >> physical > >>> possession and control of and exclusively full > > administrative/superuser > >>> access to. That's because only such hardware is qualified to hold a > > PGP > >>> private key, and the release should be verified on the machine the > >> private > >>> key lives on or on a machine as trusted as that. > >>> > >>> https://www.apache.org/dev/release-distribution.html#sigs-and-sums > Private keys MUST NOT be stored on any ASF machine. Likewise, > >> signatures > >>> for releases MUST NOT be created on ASF machines. > >>> > >>> We need to have dedicated physical ARM machines for each release > > manager,
Re: [DISCUSS] Hadoop 3.3.0 Release include ARM binary
> Sorry,didn't get you...do you mean, once release voting is > processed and upload by RM..? Yes, that is what I meant. I don’t want us to make more mandatory work for the release manager because the job is hard enough already. > On Mar 17, 2020, at 10:46 AM, Brahma Reddy Battula wrote: > > Sorry,didn't get you...do you mean, once release voting is processed and > upload by RM..? > > FYI. There is docker image for ARM also which support all scripts > (createrelease, start-build-env.sh, etc ). > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HADOOP-16797 > > On Tue, Mar 17, 2020 at 10:59 PM Arpit Agarwal > wrote: > >> Can ARM binaries be provided after the fact? We cannot increase the RM’s >> burden by asking them to generate an extra set of binaries. >> >> >>> On Mar 17, 2020, at 10:23 AM, Brahma Reddy Battula >> wrote: >>> >>> + Dev mailing list. >>> >>> -- Forwarded message - >>> From: Brahma Reddy Battula >>> Date: Tue, Mar 17, 2020 at 10:31 PM >>> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Hadoop 3.3.0 Release include ARM binary >>> To: junping_du >>> >>> >>> thanks junping for your reply. >>> >>> bq. I think most of us in Hadoop community doesn't want to have >> biased >>> on ARM or any other platforms. >>> >>> Yes, release voting will be based on the source code.AFAIK,Binary we are >>> providing for user to easy to download and verify. >>> >>> bq. The only thing I try to understand is how much complexity get >>> involved for our RM work. Does that potentially become a blocker for >> future >>> releases? And how we can get rid of this risk. >>> >>> As I mentioned earlier, RM need to access the ARM machine(it will be >>> donated and current qbt also using one ARM machine) and build tar using >> the >>> keys. As it can be common machine, RM can delete his keys once release >>> approved. >>> Can be sorted out as I mentioned earlier.(For accessing the ARM machine) >>> >>> bq. If you can list the concrete work that RM need to do extra for >>> ARM release, that would help us to better understand. >>> >>> I can write and update for future reference. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Tue, Mar 17, 2020 at 10:41 AM 俊平堵 wrote: >>> Hi Brahma, I think most of us in Hadoop community doesn't want to have biased >> on ARM or any other platforms. The only thing I try to understand is how much complexity get involved for our RM work. Does that potentially become a blocker for >> future releases? And how we can get rid of this risk. If you can list the concrete work that RM need to do extra for ARM release, that would help us to better understand. Thanks, Junping Akira Ajisaka 于2020年3月13日周五 上午12:34写道： > If you can provide ARM release for future releases, I'm fine with that. > > Thanks, > Akira > > On Thu, Mar 12, 2020 at 9:41 PM Brahma Reddy Battula < >> bra...@apache.org> > wrote: > >> thanks Akira. >> >> Currently only problem is dedicated ARM for future RM.This i want to > sort >> out like below,if you've some other,please let me know. >> >> i) Single machine and share cred to future RM ( as we can delete keys > once >> release is over). >> ii) Creating the jenkins project ( may be we need to discuss in the >> board..) >> iii) I can provide ARM release for future releases. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Thu, Mar 12, 2020 at 5:14 PM Akira Ajisaka > wrote: >> >>> Hi Brahma, >>> >>> I think we cannot do any of your proposed actions. >>> >>> >> > >> http://www.apache.org/legal/release-policy.html#owned-controlled-hardware Strictly speaking, releases must be verified on hardware owned and >>> controlled by the committer. That means hardware the committer has >> physical >>> possession and control of and exclusively full > administrative/superuser >>> access to. That's because only such hardware is qualified to hold a > PGP >>> private key, and the release should be verified on the machine the >> private >>> key lives on or on a machine as trusted as that. >>> >>> https://www.apache.org/dev/release-distribution.html#sigs-and-sums Private keys MUST NOT be stored on any ASF machine. Likewise, >> signatures >>> for releases MUST NOT be created on ASF machines. >>> >>> We need to have dedicated physical ARM machines for each release > manager, >>> and now it is not feasible. >>> If you provide an unofficial ARM binary release in some repository, >> that's >>> okay. >>> >>> -Akira >>> >>> On Thu, Mar 12, 2020 at 7:57 PM Brahma Reddy Battula < > bra...@apache.org> >>> wrote: >>> Hello folks, As currently trunk will support ARM based compilation and qbt(1) is running
Re: [DISCUSS] Hadoop 3.3.0 Release include ARM binary
Sorry,didn't get you...do you mean, once release voting is processed and upload by RM..? FYI. There is docker image for ARM also which support all scripts (createrelease, start-build-env.sh, etc ). https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HADOOP-16797 On Tue, Mar 17, 2020 at 10:59 PM Arpit Agarwal wrote: > Can ARM binaries be provided after the fact? We cannot increase the RM’s > burden by asking them to generate an extra set of binaries. > > > > On Mar 17, 2020, at 10:23 AM, Brahma Reddy Battula > wrote: > > > > + Dev mailing list. > > > > -- Forwarded message - > > From: Brahma Reddy Battula > > Date: Tue, Mar 17, 2020 at 10:31 PM > > Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Hadoop 3.3.0 Release include ARM binary > > To: junping_du > > > > > > thanks junping for your reply. > > > > bq. I think most of us in Hadoop community doesn't want to have > biased > > on ARM or any other platforms. > > > > Yes, release voting will be based on the source code.AFAIK,Binary we are > > providing for user to easy to download and verify. > > > > bq. The only thing I try to understand is how much complexity get > > involved for our RM work. Does that potentially become a blocker for > future > > releases? And how we can get rid of this risk. > > > > As I mentioned earlier, RM need to access the ARM machine(it will be > > donated and current qbt also using one ARM machine) and build tar using > the > > keys. As it can be common machine, RM can delete his keys once release > > approved. > > Can be sorted out as I mentioned earlier.(For accessing the ARM machine) > > > > bq. If you can list the concrete work that RM need to do extra for > > ARM release, that would help us to better understand. > > > > I can write and update for future reference. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Mar 17, 2020 at 10:41 AM 俊平堵 wrote: > > > >> Hi Brahma, > >> I think most of us in Hadoop community doesn't want to have biased > on > >> ARM or any other platforms. > >> The only thing I try to understand is how much complexity get > >> involved for our RM work. Does that potentially become a blocker for > future > >> releases? And how we can get rid of this risk. > >> If you can list the concrete work that RM need to do extra for ARM > >> release, that would help us to better understand. > >> > >> Thanks, > >> > >> Junping > >> > >> Akira Ajisaka 于2020年3月13日周五 上午12:34写道： > >> > >>> If you can provide ARM release for future releases, I'm fine with that. > >>> > >>> Thanks, > >>> Akira > >>> > >>> On Thu, Mar 12, 2020 at 9:41 PM Brahma Reddy Battula < > bra...@apache.org> > >>> wrote: > >>> > thanks Akira. > > Currently only problem is dedicated ARM for future RM.This i want to > >>> sort > out like below,if you've some other,please let me know. > > i) Single machine and share cred to future RM ( as we can delete keys > >>> once > release is over). > ii) Creating the jenkins project ( may be we need to discuss in the > board..) > iii) I can provide ARM release for future releases. > > > > > > > > On Thu, Mar 12, 2020 at 5:14 PM Akira Ajisaka > >>> wrote: > > > Hi Brahma, > > > > I think we cannot do any of your proposed actions. > > > > > > >>> > http://www.apache.org/legal/release-policy.html#owned-controlled-hardware > >> Strictly speaking, releases must be verified on hardware owned and > > controlled by the committer. That means hardware the committer has > physical > > possession and control of and exclusively full > >>> administrative/superuser > > access to. That's because only such hardware is qualified to hold a > >>> PGP > > private key, and the release should be verified on the machine the > private > > key lives on or on a machine as trusted as that. > > > > https://www.apache.org/dev/release-distribution.html#sigs-and-sums > >> Private keys MUST NOT be stored on any ASF machine. Likewise, > signatures > > for releases MUST NOT be created on ASF machines. > > > > We need to have dedicated physical ARM machines for each release > >>> manager, > > and now it is not feasible. > > If you provide an unofficial ARM binary release in some repository, > that's > > okay. > > > > -Akira > > > > On Thu, Mar 12, 2020 at 7:57 PM Brahma Reddy Battula < > >>> bra...@apache.org> > > wrote: > > > >> Hello folks, > >> > >> As currently trunk will support ARM based compilation and qbt(1) is > >> running > >> from several months with quite stable, hence planning to propose ARM > >> binary > >> this time. > >> > >> ( Note : As we'll know voting will be based on the source,so this > >>> will > not > >> issue.) > >> > >> *Proposed Change:* > >> Currently in downloads we are keeping only x86 binary(2),Can we keep > >>> ARM > >>
Apache Hadoop qbt Report: trunk+JDK8 on Linux/x86
For more details, see https://builds.apache.org/job/hadoop-qbt-trunk-java8-linux-x86/1441/ [Mar 16, 2020 2:28:36 AM] (github) MAPREDUCE-7237. Supports config the shuffle's path cache related [Mar 16, 2020 5:56:30 PM] (github) HADOOP-16661. Support TLS 1.3 (#1880) [Mar 16, 2020 10:24:02 PM] (ebadger) YARN-2710. RM HA tests failed intermittently on trunk. Contributed by -1 overall The following subsystems voted -1: asflicense findbugs pathlen unit xml The following subsystems voted -1 but were configured to be filtered/ignored: cc checkstyle javac javadoc pylint shellcheck shelldocs whitespace The following subsystems are considered long running: (runtime bigger than 1h 0m 0s) unit Specific tests: XML : Parsing Error(s): hadoop-yarn-project/hadoop-yarn/hadoop-yarn-server/hadoop-yarn-server-nodemanager/src/test/resources/nvidia-smi-output-excerpt.xml hadoop-yarn-project/hadoop-yarn/hadoop-yarn-server/hadoop-yarn-server-nodemanager/src/test/resources/nvidia-smi-output-missing-tags.xml hadoop-yarn-project/hadoop-yarn/hadoop-yarn-server/hadoop-yarn-server-nodemanager/src/test/resources/nvidia-smi-output-missing-tags2.xml hadoop-yarn-project/hadoop-yarn/hadoop-yarn-server/hadoop-yarn-server-nodemanager/src/test/resources/nvidia-smi-sample-output.xml hadoop-yarn-project/hadoop-yarn/hadoop-yarn-server/hadoop-yarn-server-resourcemanager/src/test/resources/fair-scheduler-invalid.xml hadoop-yarn-project/hadoop-yarn/hadoop-yarn-server/hadoop-yarn-server-resourcemanager/src/test/resources/yarn-site-with-invalid-allocation-file-ref.xml FindBugs : module:hadoop-cloud-storage-project/hadoop-cos Redundant nullcheck of dir, which is known to be non-null in org.apache.hadoop.fs.cosn.BufferPool.createDir(String) Redundant null check at BufferPool.java:is known to be non-null in org.apache.hadoop.fs.cosn.BufferPool.createDir(String) Redundant null check at BufferPool.java:[line 66] org.apache.hadoop.fs.cosn.CosNInputStream$ReadBuffer.getBuffer() may expose internal representation by returning CosNInputStream$ReadBuffer.buffer At CosNInputStream.java:by returning CosNInputStream$ReadBuffer.buffer At CosNInputStream.java:[line 87] Found reliance on default encoding in org.apache.hadoop.fs.cosn.CosNativeFileSystemStore.storeFile(String, File, byte[]):in org.apache.hadoop.fs.cosn.CosNativeFileSystemStore.storeFile(String, File, byte[]): new String(byte[]) At CosNativeFileSystemStore.java:[line 199] Found reliance on default encoding in org.apache.hadoop.fs.cosn.CosNativeFileSystemStore.storeFileWithRetry(String, InputStream, byte[], long):in org.apache.hadoop.fs.cosn.CosNativeFileSystemStore.storeFileWithRetry(String, InputStream, byte[], long): new String(byte[]) At CosNativeFileSystemStore.java:[line 178] org.apache.hadoop.fs.cosn.CosNativeFileSystemStore.uploadPart(File, String, String, int) may fail to clean up java.io.InputStream Obligation to clean up resource created at CosNativeFileSystemStore.java:fail to clean up java.io.InputStream Obligation to clean up resource created at CosNativeFileSystemStore.java:[line 252] is not discharged Failed junit tests : hadoop.hdfs.server.federation.router.TestRouterFaultTolerant hadoop.yarn.server.timelineservice.storage.TestTimelineWriterHBaseDown hadoop.yarn.applications.distributedshell.TestDistributedShell hadoop.mapreduce.TestMapreduceConfigFields cc: https://builds.apache.org/job/hadoop-qbt-trunk-java8-linux-x86/1441/artifact/out/diff-compile-cc-root.txt [8.0K] javac: https://builds.apache.org/job/hadoop-qbt-trunk-java8-linux-x86/1441/artifact/out/diff-compile-javac-root.txt [428K] checkstyle: https://builds.apache.org/job/hadoop-qbt-trunk-java8-linux-x86/1441/artifact/out/diff-checkstyle-root.txt [16M] pathlen: https://builds.apache.org/job/hadoop-qbt-trunk-java8-linux-x86/1441/artifact/out/pathlen.txt [12K] pylint: https://builds.apache.org/job/hadoop-qbt-trunk-java8-linux-x86/1441/artifact/out/diff-patch-pylint.txt [24K] shellcheck: https://builds.apache.org/job/hadoop-qbt-trunk-java8-linux-x86/1441/artifact/out/diff-patch-shellcheck.txt [16K] shelldocs: https://builds.apache.org/job/hadoop-qbt-trunk-java8-linux-x86/1441/artifact/out/diff-patch-shelldocs.txt [44K] whitespace: https://builds.apache.org/job/hadoop-qbt-trunk-java8-linux-x86/1441/artifact/out/whitespace-eol.txt [9.9M] https://builds.apache.org/job/hadoop-qbt-trunk-java8-linux-x86/1441/artifact/out/whitespace-tabs.txt [1.1M] xml: https://builds.apache.org/job/hadoop-qbt-trunk-java8-linux-x86/1441/artifact/out/xml.txt [20K] findbugs:
Re: [DISCUSS] Hadoop 3.3.0 Release include ARM binary
Thanks Masatake!! I was aware of this thread which you given for reference as I am the source to discuss this(as I verified binary and given some comments). Please check following for same. https://lists.apache.org/list.html?common-...@hadoop.apache.org:2017-7 AFAIK, that discussion whether we should vote ton he binary or not.Even Andrew discussed with legal team [1] and finally it was concluded that vote should only on source I think. 1. https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-323 On Tue, Mar 17, 2020 at 11:23 AM Masatake Iwasaki < iwasak...@oss.nttdata.co.jp> wrote: > This thread seems to be relevant. > > https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/0d2a1b39f7e890c4f40be5fd92f107fbf048b936005901b7b53dd0f1%40%3Ccommon-dev.hadoop.apache.org%3E > > > Convenience binary artifacts are not official release artifacts and thus > > are not voted on. However, since they are distributed by Apache, they > are > > still subject to the same distribution requirements as official release > > artifacts. This means they need to have a LICENSE and NOTICE file, > follow > > ASF licensing rules, etc. The PMC needs to ensure that binary artifacts > > meet these requirements. > > > > However, being a "convenience" artifact doesn't mean it isn't important. > > The appropriate level of quality for binary artifacts is left up to the > > project. An OpenOffice person mentioned the quality of their binary > > artifacts is super important since very few of their users will compile > > their own office suite. > > > > I don't know if we've discussed the topic of binary artifact quality in > > Hadoop. My stance is that if we're going to publish something, it > should be > > good, or we shouldn't publish it at all. I think we do want to publish > > binary tarballs (it's the easiest way for new users to get started with > > Hadoop), so it's fair to consider them when evaluating a release. > > Just providing build machine to RM would not be enough if > PMC need to ensure that binary artifiacts meet these requirements. > > Thanks, > Masatake Iwasaki > > On 3/17/20 14:11, 俊平堵 wrote: > > Hi Brahma, > > I think most of us in Hadoop community doesn't want to have biased > on > > ARM or any other platforms. > > The only thing I try to understand is how much complexity get > involved > > for our RM work. Does that potentially become a blocker for future > > releases? And how we can get rid of this risk. > >If you can list the concrete work that RM need to do extra for ARM > > release, that would help us to better understand. > > > > Thanks, > > > > Junping > > > > Akira Ajisaka 于2020年3月13日周五 上午12:34写道： > > > >> If you can provide ARM release for future releases, I'm fine with that. > >> > >> Thanks, > >> Akira > >> > >> On Thu, Mar 12, 2020 at 9:41 PM Brahma Reddy Battula > > >> wrote: > >> > >>> thanks Akira. > >>> > >>> Currently only problem is dedicated ARM for future RM.This i want to > sort > >>> out like below,if you've some other,please let me know. > >>> > >>> i) Single machine and share cred to future RM ( as we can delete keys > >> once > >>> release is over). > >>> ii) Creating the jenkins project ( may be we need to discuss in the > >>> board..) > >>> iii) I can provide ARM release for future releases. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> On Thu, Mar 12, 2020 at 5:14 PM Akira Ajisaka > >> wrote: > Hi Brahma, > > I think we cannot do any of your proposed actions. > > > >> > http://www.apache.org/legal/release-policy.html#owned-controlled-hardware > > Strictly speaking, releases must be verified on hardware owned and > controlled by the committer. That means hardware the committer has > >>> physical > possession and control of and exclusively full > administrative/superuser > access to. That's because only such hardware is qualified to hold a > PGP > private key, and the release should be verified on the machine the > >>> private > key lives on or on a machine as trusted as that. > > https://www.apache.org/dev/release-distribution.html#sigs-and-sums > > Private keys MUST NOT be stored on any ASF machine. Likewise, > >>> signatures > for releases MUST NOT be created on ASF machines. > > We need to have dedicated physical ARM machines for each release > >> manager, > and now it is not feasible. > If you provide an unofficial ARM binary release in some repository, > >>> that's > okay. > > -Akira > > On Thu, Mar 12, 2020 at 7:57 PM Brahma Reddy Battula < > >> bra...@apache.org> > wrote: > > > Hello folks, > > > > As currently trunk will support ARM based compilation and qbt(1) is > > running > > from several months with quite stable, hence planning to propose ARM > > binary > > this time. > > > > ( Note : As we'll know voting will be based on the source,so this > will > >>> not > > issue.) > > > > *Proposed
Re: [DISCUSS] Hadoop 3.3.0 Release include ARM binary
Can ARM binaries be provided after the fact? We cannot increase the RM’s burden by asking them to generate an extra set of binaries. > On Mar 17, 2020, at 10:23 AM, Brahma Reddy Battula wrote: > > + Dev mailing list. > > -- Forwarded message - > From: Brahma Reddy Battula > Date: Tue, Mar 17, 2020 at 10:31 PM > Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Hadoop 3.3.0 Release include ARM binary > To: junping_du > > > thanks junping for your reply. > > bq. I think most of us in Hadoop community doesn't want to have biased > on ARM or any other platforms. > > Yes, release voting will be based on the source code.AFAIK,Binary we are > providing for user to easy to download and verify. > > bq. The only thing I try to understand is how much complexity get > involved for our RM work. Does that potentially become a blocker for future > releases? And how we can get rid of this risk. > > As I mentioned earlier, RM need to access the ARM machine(it will be > donated and current qbt also using one ARM machine) and build tar using the > keys. As it can be common machine, RM can delete his keys once release > approved. > Can be sorted out as I mentioned earlier.(For accessing the ARM machine) > > bq. If you can list the concrete work that RM need to do extra for > ARM release, that would help us to better understand. > > I can write and update for future reference. > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Mar 17, 2020 at 10:41 AM 俊平堵 wrote: > >> Hi Brahma, >> I think most of us in Hadoop community doesn't want to have biased on >> ARM or any other platforms. >> The only thing I try to understand is how much complexity get >> involved for our RM work. Does that potentially become a blocker for future >> releases? And how we can get rid of this risk. >> If you can list the concrete work that RM need to do extra for ARM >> release, that would help us to better understand. >> >> Thanks, >> >> Junping >> >> Akira Ajisaka 于2020年3月13日周五 上午12:34写道： >> >>> If you can provide ARM release for future releases, I'm fine with that. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Akira >>> >>> On Thu, Mar 12, 2020 at 9:41 PM Brahma Reddy Battula >>> wrote: >>> thanks Akira. Currently only problem is dedicated ARM for future RM.This i want to >>> sort out like below,if you've some other,please let me know. i) Single machine and share cred to future RM ( as we can delete keys >>> once release is over). ii) Creating the jenkins project ( may be we need to discuss in the board..) iii) I can provide ARM release for future releases. On Thu, Mar 12, 2020 at 5:14 PM Akira Ajisaka >>> wrote: > Hi Brahma, > > I think we cannot do any of your proposed actions. > > >>> http://www.apache.org/legal/release-policy.html#owned-controlled-hardware >> Strictly speaking, releases must be verified on hardware owned and > controlled by the committer. That means hardware the committer has physical > possession and control of and exclusively full >>> administrative/superuser > access to. That's because only such hardware is qualified to hold a >>> PGP > private key, and the release should be verified on the machine the private > key lives on or on a machine as trusted as that. > > https://www.apache.org/dev/release-distribution.html#sigs-and-sums >> Private keys MUST NOT be stored on any ASF machine. Likewise, signatures > for releases MUST NOT be created on ASF machines. > > We need to have dedicated physical ARM machines for each release >>> manager, > and now it is not feasible. > If you provide an unofficial ARM binary release in some repository, that's > okay. > > -Akira > > On Thu, Mar 12, 2020 at 7:57 PM Brahma Reddy Battula < >>> bra...@apache.org> > wrote: > >> Hello folks, >> >> As currently trunk will support ARM based compilation and qbt(1) is >> running >> from several months with quite stable, hence planning to propose ARM >> binary >> this time. >> >> ( Note : As we'll know voting will be based on the source,so this >>> will not >> issue.) >> >> *Proposed Change:* >> Currently in downloads we are keeping only x86 binary(2),Can we keep >>> ARM >> binary also.? >> >> *Actions:* >> a) *Dedicated* *Machine*: >> i) Dedicated ARM machine will be donated which I confirmed >> ii) Or can use jenkins ARM machine itself which is currently >>> used >> for ARM >> b) *Automate Release:* How about having one release project in jenkins..? >> So that future RM's just trigger the jenkin project. >> >> Please let me know your thoughts on this. >> >> >> 1. >> >> >>> https://builds.apache.org/view/H-L/view/Hadoop/job/Hadoop-qbt-linux-ARM-trunk/ >>
Fwd: [DISCUSS] Hadoop 3.3.0 Release include ARM binary
+ Dev mailing list. -- Forwarded message - From: Brahma Reddy Battula Date: Tue, Mar 17, 2020 at 10:31 PM Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Hadoop 3.3.0 Release include ARM binary To: junping_du thanks junping for your reply. bq. I think most of us in Hadoop community doesn't want to have biased on ARM or any other platforms. Yes, release voting will be based on the source code.AFAIK,Binary we are providing for user to easy to download and verify. bq. The only thing I try to understand is how much complexity get involved for our RM work. Does that potentially become a blocker for future releases? And how we can get rid of this risk. As I mentioned earlier, RM need to access the ARM machine(it will be donated and current qbt also using one ARM machine) and build tar using the keys. As it can be common machine, RM can delete his keys once release approved. Can be sorted out as I mentioned earlier.(For accessing the ARM machine) bq. If you can list the concrete work that RM need to do extra for ARM release, that would help us to better understand. I can write and update for future reference. On Tue, Mar 17, 2020 at 10:41 AM 俊平堵 wrote: > Hi Brahma, > I think most of us in Hadoop community doesn't want to have biased on > ARM or any other platforms. > The only thing I try to understand is how much complexity get > involved for our RM work. Does that potentially become a blocker for future > releases? And how we can get rid of this risk. > If you can list the concrete work that RM need to do extra for ARM > release, that would help us to better understand. > > Thanks, > > Junping > > Akira Ajisaka 于2020年3月13日周五 上午12:34写道： > >> If you can provide ARM release for future releases, I'm fine with that. >> >> Thanks, >> Akira >> >> On Thu, Mar 12, 2020 at 9:41 PM Brahma Reddy Battula >> wrote: >> >> > thanks Akira. >> > >> > Currently only problem is dedicated ARM for future RM.This i want to >> sort >> > out like below,if you've some other,please let me know. >> > >> > i) Single machine and share cred to future RM ( as we can delete keys >> once >> > release is over). >> > ii) Creating the jenkins project ( may be we need to discuss in the >> > board..) >> > iii) I can provide ARM release for future releases. >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > On Thu, Mar 12, 2020 at 5:14 PM Akira Ajisaka >> wrote: >> > >> > > Hi Brahma, >> > > >> > > I think we cannot do any of your proposed actions. >> > > >> > > >> > >> http://www.apache.org/legal/release-policy.html#owned-controlled-hardware >> > > > Strictly speaking, releases must be verified on hardware owned and >> > > controlled by the committer. That means hardware the committer has >> > physical >> > > possession and control of and exclusively full >> administrative/superuser >> > > access to. That's because only such hardware is qualified to hold a >> PGP >> > > private key, and the release should be verified on the machine the >> > private >> > > key lives on or on a machine as trusted as that. >> > > >> > > https://www.apache.org/dev/release-distribution.html#sigs-and-sums >> > > > Private keys MUST NOT be stored on any ASF machine. Likewise, >> > signatures >> > > for releases MUST NOT be created on ASF machines. >> > > >> > > We need to have dedicated physical ARM machines for each release >> manager, >> > > and now it is not feasible. >> > > If you provide an unofficial ARM binary release in some repository, >> > that's >> > > okay. >> > > >> > > -Akira >> > > >> > > On Thu, Mar 12, 2020 at 7:57 PM Brahma Reddy Battula < >> bra...@apache.org> >> > > wrote: >> > > >> > >> Hello folks, >> > >> >> > >> As currently trunk will support ARM based compilation and qbt(1) is >> > >> running >> > >> from several months with quite stable, hence planning to propose ARM >> > >> binary >> > >> this time. >> > >> >> > >> ( Note : As we'll know voting will be based on the source,so this >> will >> > not >> > >> issue.) >> > >> >> > >> *Proposed Change:* >> > >> Currently in downloads we are keeping only x86 binary(2),Can we keep >> ARM >> > >> binary also.? >> > >> >> > >> *Actions:* >> > >> a) *Dedicated* *Machine*: >> > >>i) Dedicated ARM machine will be donated which I confirmed >> > >>ii) Or can use jenkins ARM machine itself which is currently >> used >> > >> for ARM >> > >> b) *Automate Release:* How about having one release project in >> > jenkins..? >> > >> So that future RM's just trigger the jenkin project. >> > >> >> > >> Please let me know your thoughts on this. >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> 1. >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> https://builds.apache.org/view/H-L/view/Hadoop/job/Hadoop-qbt-linux-ARM-trunk/ >> > >> 2.https://hadoop.apache.org/releases.html >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> --Brahma Reddy Battula >> > >> >> > > >> > >> > -- >> > >> > >> > >> > --Brahma Reddy Battula >> > >> > -- --Brahma Reddy Battula -- --Brahma Reddy Battula
Apache Hadoop qbt Report: branch2.10+JDK7 on Linux/x86
For more details, see https://builds.apache.org/job/hadoop-qbt-branch-2.10-java7-linux-x86/627/ [Mar 16, 2020 10:31:43 PM] (ebadger) YARN-2710. RM HA tests failed intermittently on trunk. Contributed by -1 overall The following subsystems voted -1: findbugs hadolint pathlen unit xml The following subsystems voted -1 but were configured to be filtered/ignored: cc checkstyle javac javadoc pylint shellcheck shelldocs whitespace Specific tests: XML : Parsing Error(s): hadoop-common-project/hadoop-common/src/test/java/org/apache/hadoop/conf/empty-configuration.xml hadoop-tools/hadoop-azure/src/config/checkstyle-suppressions.xml hadoop-yarn-project/hadoop-yarn/hadoop-yarn-ui/public/crossdomain.xml hadoop-yarn-project/hadoop-yarn/hadoop-yarn-ui/src/main/webapp/public/crossdomain.xml FindBugs : module:hadoop-yarn-project/hadoop-yarn/hadoop-yarn-server/hadoop-yarn-server-timelineservice-hbase/hadoop-yarn-server-timelineservice-hbase-client Boxed value is unboxed and then immediately reboxed in org.apache.hadoop.yarn.server.timelineservice.storage.common.ColumnRWHelper.readResultsWithTimestamps(Result, byte[], byte[], KeyConverter, ValueConverter, boolean) At ColumnRWHelper.java:then immediately reboxed in org.apache.hadoop.yarn.server.timelineservice.storage.common.ColumnRWHelper.readResultsWithTimestamps(Result, byte[], byte[], KeyConverter, ValueConverter, boolean) At ColumnRWHelper.java:[line 335] cc: https://builds.apache.org/job/hadoop-qbt-branch-2.10-java7-linux-x86/627/artifact/out/diff-compile-cc-root-jdk1.7.0_95.txt [4.0K] javac: https://builds.apache.org/job/hadoop-qbt-branch-2.10-java7-linux-x86/627/artifact/out/diff-compile-javac-root-jdk1.7.0_95.txt [328K] cc: https://builds.apache.org/job/hadoop-qbt-branch-2.10-java7-linux-x86/627/artifact/out/diff-compile-cc-root-jdk1.8.0_242.txt [4.0K] javac: https://builds.apache.org/job/hadoop-qbt-branch-2.10-java7-linux-x86/627/artifact/out/diff-compile-javac-root-jdk1.8.0_242.txt [308K] checkstyle: https://builds.apache.org/job/hadoop-qbt-branch-2.10-java7-linux-x86/627/artifact/out/diff-checkstyle-root.txt [16M] hadolint: https://builds.apache.org/job/hadoop-qbt-branch-2.10-java7-linux-x86/627/artifact/out/diff-patch-hadolint.txt [4.0K] pathlen: https://builds.apache.org/job/hadoop-qbt-branch-2.10-java7-linux-x86/627/artifact/out/pathlen.txt [12K] pylint: https://builds.apache.org/job/hadoop-qbt-branch-2.10-java7-linux-x86/627/artifact/out/diff-patch-pylint.txt [24K] shellcheck: https://builds.apache.org/job/hadoop-qbt-branch-2.10-java7-linux-x86/627/artifact/out/diff-patch-shellcheck.txt [56K] shelldocs: https://builds.apache.org/job/hadoop-qbt-branch-2.10-java7-linux-x86/627/artifact/out/diff-patch-shelldocs.txt [8.0K] whitespace: https://builds.apache.org/job/hadoop-qbt-branch-2.10-java7-linux-x86/627/artifact/out/whitespace-eol.txt [12M] https://builds.apache.org/job/hadoop-qbt-branch-2.10-java7-linux-x86/627/artifact/out/whitespace-tabs.txt [1.3M] xml: https://builds.apache.org/job/hadoop-qbt-branch-2.10-java7-linux-x86/627/artifact/out/xml.txt [12K] findbugs: https://builds.apache.org/job/hadoop-qbt-branch-2.10-java7-linux-x86/627/artifact/out/branch-findbugs-hadoop-yarn-project_hadoop-yarn_hadoop-yarn-server_hadoop-yarn-server-timelineservice-hbase_hadoop-yarn-server-timelineservice-hbase-client-warnings.html [8.0K] javadoc: https://builds.apache.org/job/hadoop-qbt-branch-2.10-java7-linux-x86/627/artifact/out/patch-javadoc-root-jdk1.7.0_95.txt [76K] https://builds.apache.org/job/hadoop-qbt-branch-2.10-java7-linux-x86/627/artifact/out/patch-javadoc-root-jdk1.8.0_242.txt [52K] unit: https://builds.apache.org/job/hadoop-qbt-branch-2.10-java7-linux-x86/627/artifact/out/patch-unit-hadoop-project.txt [0] https://builds.apache.org/job/hadoop-qbt-branch-2.10-java7-linux-x86/627/artifact/out/patch-unit-hadoop-common-project_hadoop-annotations.txt [0] https://builds.apache.org/job/hadoop-qbt-branch-2.10-java7-linux-x86/627/artifact/out/patch-unit-hadoop-assemblies.txt [8.0K] https://builds.apache.org/job/hadoop-qbt-branch-2.10-java7-linux-x86/627/artifact/out/patch-unit-hadoop-maven-plugins.txt [4.0K] https://builds.apache.org/job/hadoop-qbt-branch-2.10-java7-linux-x86/627/artifact/out/patch-unit-hadoop-common-project_hadoop-minikdc.txt [0] https://builds.apache.org/job/hadoop-qbt-branch-2.10-java7-linux-x86/627/artifact/out/patch-unit-hadoop-yarn-project_hadoop-yarn_hadoop-yarn-site.txt [0] https://builds.apache.org/job/hadoop-qbt-branch-2.10-java7-linux-x86/627/artifact/out/patch-unit-hadoop-yarn-project_hadoop-yarn_hadoop-yarn-ui.txt [0]
