+1good idea
Thanks for contributing Sangjin.
On Mon, Dec 2, 2013 at 11:47 AM, Sangjin Lee wrote:
> We have been having discussions on HADOOP-9639 (shared cache for jars) and
> the proposed design there for some time now. We are going to start work on
> this and have it vetted and reviewed b
Chris,
I'm already on it.
Thanks.
On Fri, Dec 6, 2013 at 9:49 AM, Chris Nauroth wrote:
> +1 for the idea. The branch committership clause was added for exactly
> this kind of scenario.
>
> From the phrasing in the bylaws, it looks like we'll need assistance from
> PMC to get the ball rolling.
+1 for the idea. The branch committership clause was added for exactly
this kind of scenario.
>From the phrasing in the bylaws, it looks like we'll need assistance from
PMC to get the ball rolling. Is there a PMC member out there who could
volunteer to help start the process with Sangjin?
Chris
We have been having discussions on HADOOP-9639 (shared cache for jars) and
the proposed design there for some time now. We are going to start work on
this and have it vetted and reviewed by the community. I have just filed
some more implementation JIRAs for this feature: YARN-1465, MAPREDUCE-5662,
