+1 on 2.0.5 defined in this thread with the new features.
But I am supportive of an earlier release that has ALL the compatibility
changes, without the features.
sanjay
On May 15, 2013, at 10:57 AM, Arun C Murthy wrote:
Folks,
...
I propose we continue the original plan and make a
-1 for the record.
This is a great plan for 2.1, which I would gladly support, but not for
2.0.5.
I do not see how the previous vote could have been confusing,
as it contained a direct quotation of the relative clause of Bylaws.
Arun, the format of this vote remains confusing.
What is the
Chris,
I find you are contradicting yourself within this message and with some
other of yours.
But I want to address only one thing here
This has exposed a bug in our bylaws, which we can fix.
This could be a bug, and we may need to fix it. But until then it is a
bylaw,
which is the only rule
Jason Lowe created HADOOP-9583:
--
Summary: test-patch gives +1 despite build failure when running
tests
Key: HADOOP-9583
URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HADOOP-9583
Project: Hadoop Common
Hi Folks
My name is Steve Watt and I am presently working on enabling glusterfs to be
used as a Hadoop FileSystem. Most of the work thus far has involved developing
a Hadoop FileSystem plugin for glusterfs. I'm getting to the point where the
plugin is becoming stable and I've been trying to
Giridharan Kesavan created HADOOP-9584:
--
Summary: fix findbugs warnings
Key: HADOOP-9584
URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HADOOP-9584
Project: Hadoop Common
Issue Type: Bug
Giridharan Kesavan created HADOOP-9585:
--
Summary: unit test failure
:org.apache.hadoop.fs.TestFsShellReturnCode.testChgrp
Key: HADOOP-9585
URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HADOOP-9585
Giridharan Kesavan created HADOOP-9586:
--
Summary: unit test failure:
org.apache.hadoop.hdfs.TestFileCreation.testFileCreationSetLocalInterface
Key: HADOOP-9586
URL:
Giridharan Kesavan created HADOOP-9587:
--
Summary: unit test failure:
org.apache.hadoop.hdfs.server.balancer.TestBalancerWithNodeGroup.testBalancerWithRackLocality
Key: HADOOP-9587
URL:
I've now started a separate discussion thread in common-dev@, titled
[PROPOSAL] change in bylaws to remove Release Plan vote. If it achieves
consensus, I'll put it to a vote to so change the bylaws.
Best,
--Matt
On Sat, May 18, 2013 at 4:22 PM, Chris Douglas cdoug...@apache.org wrote:
The
+1million
I completely agree with Chris D's separate email too about not
vote'ing about intentions, and voting on actual artifacts.
The fact of the matter at the ASF is that any PMC member; heck any
contributor can roll a release candidate. If that candidate receives
at least 3 PMC member +1s
Jian He created HADOOP-9589:
---
Summary: Extra master key is created when
AbstractDelegationTokenSecretManager is started
Key: HADOOP-9589
URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HADOOP-9589
Project:
+1
Thanks for taking care of this, Matt. -C
On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 2:10 PM, Matt Foley ma...@apache.org wrote:
Hi all,
This has been a side topic in several email threads recently. Currently we
have an ambiguity. We have a tradition in the dev community that any
committer can create a
+1
I've always found the Release Plan votes a bit bizarre, and the fact that
we've gone through many releases that did not have a corresponding Release
Plan vote suggest to me that we should just scrap them.
--
Aaron T. Myers
Software Engineer, Cloudera
On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 5:37 PM, Chris
+1
On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 2:10 PM, Matt Foley ma...@apache.org wrote:
Hi all,
This has been a side topic in several email threads recently. Currently we
have an ambiguity. We have a tradition in the dev community that any
committer can create a branch, and propose release candidates from
+1
On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 2:48 PM, Suresh Srinivas sur...@hortonworks.comwrote:
+1
On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 2:10 PM, Matt Foley ma...@apache.org wrote:
Hi all,
This has been a side topic in several email threads recently. Currently
we
have an ambiguity. We have a tradition in the
+1
-Giri
On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 2:10 PM, Matt Foley ma...@apache.org wrote:
Hi all,
This has been a side topic in several email threads recently. Currently we
have an ambiguity. We have a tradition in the dev community that any
committer can create a branch, and propose release
+1
--
Arpit Gupta
Hortonworks Inc.
http://hortonworks.com/
On May 21, 2013, at 2:10 PM, Matt Foley ma...@apache.org wrote:
Hi all,
This has been a side topic in several email threads recently. Currently we
have an ambiguity. We have a tradition in the dev community that any
committer can
I see one significant benefit to having Release Plan votes: Fewer releases with
more members of the community working on any given release.
In turn, fewer Hadoop releases implies less confusion for end users attempting
to download and use an Apache Hadoop release.
If there are a dozen different
+1, thanks for taking the initiative on this Matt.
On May 21, 2013, at 2:10 PM, Matt Foley wrote:
Hi all,
This has been a side topic in several email threads recently. Currently we
have an ambiguity. We have a tradition in the dev community that any
committer can create a branch, and
+1 thanks Matt.
On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 2:10 PM, Matt Foley ma...@apache.org wrote:
Hi all,
This has been a side topic in several email threads recently. Currently we
have an ambiguity. We have a tradition in the dev community that any
committer can create a branch, and propose release
+1 (non-binding)
On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 4:02 PM, Eli Collins e...@cloudera.com wrote:
+1 thanks Matt.
On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 2:10 PM, Matt Foley ma...@apache.org wrote:
Hi all,
This has been a side topic in several email threads recently. Currently
we
have an ambiguity. We have
+1
On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 4:02 PM, Eli Collins e...@cloudera.com wrote:
+1 thanks Matt.
On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 2:10 PM, Matt Foley ma...@apache.org wrote:
Hi all,
This has been a side topic in several email threads recently. Currently
we
have an ambiguity. We have a tradition
+1 (non-binding)
On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 4:13 PM, Jitendra Pandey
jiten...@hortonworks.comwrote:
+1
On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 4:02 PM, Eli Collins e...@cloudera.com wrote:
+1 thanks Matt.
On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 2:10 PM, Matt Foley ma...@apache.org wrote:
Hi all,
This has
+1.
thanks
mahadev
On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 4:48 PM, Karthik Kambatla ka...@cloudera.com wrote:
+1 (non-binding)
On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 4:13 PM, Jitendra Pandey
jiten...@hortonworks.comwrote:
+1
On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 4:02 PM, Eli Collins e...@cloudera.com wrote:
+1 thanks Matt.
13/14 +1's. I think that constitutes consensus. Moving this to a VOTE
thread. Please repeat your +1s :-)
Cheers,
--Matt
On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 5:33 PM, Mahadev Konar maha...@hortonworks.comwrote:
+1.
thanks
mahadev
On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 4:48 PM, Karthik Kambatla ka...@cloudera.com
Why repeat just tally new ones?
Sent from my iPhone
On May 21, 2013, at 6:58 PM, Matt Foley ma...@apache.org wrote:
13/14 +1's. I think that constitutes consensus. Moving this to a VOTE
thread. Please repeat your +1s :-)
Cheers,
--Matt
On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 5:33 PM, Mahadev Konar
Ok, if no one complains I will phrase the vote to include +1's explicitly
cast in the discussion thread.
--Matt
On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 6:58 PM, Mattmann, Chris A (398J)
chris.a.mattm...@jpl.nasa.gov wrote:
Why repeat just tally new ones?
Sent from my iPhone
On May 21, 2013, at 6:58 PM,
This was previously discussed in the thread [PROPOSAL] change in bylaws to
remove Release Plan vote. 13 people explicitly cast +1s in that thread.
Absent objection I will count those as votes without requiring them to
(re-)respond to this VOTE thread.
The following change is proposed in the
Hi Jagane,
since you did not explicitly cast a -1 or other numerical vote, please if
you wish go ahead and cast a vote in the VOTE thread.
Best regards,
--Matt
On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 3:47 PM, Jagane Sundar jag...@sundar.org wrote:
I see one significant benefit to having Release Plan votes:
+1.
-- Hitesh
On May 21, 2013, at 7:03 PM, Matt Foley wrote:
This was previously discussed in the thread [PROPOSAL] change in bylaws to
remove Release Plan vote. 13 people explicitly cast +1s in that thread.
Absent objection I will count those as votes without requiring them to
Ivan Mitic created HADOOP-9590:
--
Summary: Move to JDK7 improved APIs for file operations when
available
Key: HADOOP-9590
URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HADOOP-9590
Project: Hadoop Common
Uri Laserson created HADOOP-9591:
Summary: Hadoop SnappyCodec (incorrectly?) uses block compression
Key: HADOOP-9591
URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HADOOP-9591
Project: Hadoop Common
33 matches
Mail list logo
