On Sun, Mar 3, 2013 at 1:41 PM, Jagmohan Chauhan simplefundumn...@gmail.com
wrote:
Hi
I am going through the Capacity Scheduler implementation. There is one
thing i did not understand clearly.
Are you reading the YARN CapacityScheduler or the older, MRv1 one? I'd
suggest reading the newer
Hi Konstantin,
I'd like to point out two things:
First, I already committed in this thread (email of Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at
6:01 PM) to providing CI for Windows builds. So please stop acting like
I'm resisting this idea or something.
Second, you didn't answer my question, you just kvetched about
Didn't I explain in details what I am asking for?
Thanks,
--Konst
On Sun, Mar 3, 2013 at 11:08 AM, Matt Foley mfo...@hortonworks.com wrote:
Hi Konstantin,
I'd like to point out two things:
First, I already committed in this thread (email of Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at
6:01 PM) to providing CI for
Thanks Harsh.
I have a few more questions.
Q1: I found it in my experiments using CS that for any user , its next job
does not start until its current one is finished. Is it true and are there
any exceptions and if true then why is it so? I I did not find any such
condition in the
+1 (non-binding),
Windows support is attractive for lots users.
From point a view from Hadoop developer, Matt said that CI supports
cross platform testing, and it's quite reasonable condition to merge.
Thanks,
Tsuyoshi
Have we agreed (and stated it somewhere proper) that a -1 obtained for
a Windows CI build for a test-patch will not block the ongoing work
(unless it is Windows specific) and patches may still be committed to
trunk despite that?
I'm +1 if someone can assert and add the above into the formal
