Re: [Vote] Merge branch-trunk-win to trunk

of CI and related infrastructure to support the platform well. Suresh outlined the support to effect this here: http://s.apache.org/s1 Is the commitment to establish this infrastructure after the merge sufficient? -C On Fri, Mar 1, 2013 at 12:18 PM, Konstantin Shvachko shv.had...@gmail.com

Re: [Vote] Merge branch-trunk-win to trunk

is the volunteer for this work, please speak up when it can be done. Thanks, --Konstantin On Fri, Mar 1, 2013 at 6:03 PM, sanjay Radia san...@hortonworks.com wrote: On Mar 1, 2013, at 1:57 PM, Konstantin Shvachko wrote: Commitment is a good thing. I think the two builds that I proposed

Re: [Vote] Merge branch-trunk-win to trunk

) satisfy your request for functionality #1 and #2? Yes or no, please. Thanks, --Matt On Sat, Mar 2, 2013 at 7:32 PM, Konstantin Shvachko shv.had...@gmail.com wrote: Hi Matt, On Sat, Mar 2, 2013 at 12:32 PM, Matt Foley mfo...@hortonworks.com wrote: Konstantin, I would like to explore

Re: [Vote] Merge branch-trunk-win to trunk

of these requirements. Please give me owner feedback as to whether my proposed work sounds like it will satisfy the requirements. Thank you, --Matt On Sun, Mar 3, 2013 at 12:16 PM, Konstantin Shvachko shv.had...@gmail.com wrote: Didn't I explain in details what I am asking for? Thanks

Re: [Vote] Merge branch-trunk-win to trunk

PM, Konstantin Shvachko shv.had...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 12:22 PM, Matt Foley mfo...@hortonworks.com wrote: Konstantine, you have voted -1, and stated some requirements before you'll withdraw that -1. As I plan to do work to fulfill those requirements, I want to make

Re: [Vote] Merge branch-trunk-win to trunk

, 2013 at 5:00 PM, Konstantin Shvachko shv.had...@gmail.comwrote: +1 on the merge. I am glad we agreed. Having Jira to track the CI effort is a good idea. Thanks, --Konstantin On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 3:29 PM, Matt Foley mfo...@hortonworks.com wrote: Thanks. I agree

Re: Heads up - 2.0.5-beta

Arun, Could you please define the release plan and put it into vote. In accordance with the ByLaws. After this discussion of course. http://hadoop.apache.org/bylaws.html Release Plan Defines the timetable and actions for a release. The plan also nominates a Release Manager. Lazy majority of

Re: Heads up - 2.0.5-beta

Arun, Suresh, Very exciting to hear about this final push to stable Hadoop 2. But I have a problem. Either with the plan or with the version number. I'll be arguing for the number change below rather than the plan. 1. Based on features listed by Suresh it looks that you plan a heavy feature-full

Re: Heads up - 2.0.5-beta

to be very productive. Thanks, --Konstantin On Fri, Apr 26, 2013 at 6:06 PM, Arun C Murthy a...@hortonworks.com wrote: Konstantin, On Apr 26, 2013, at 4:34 PM, Konstantin Shvachko wrote: Do you think we can call the version you proposed to release 2.1.0 or 2.1.0-beta? The proposed new

Re: Heads up - 2.0.5-beta

If there are no objections, I'll start a vote on this proposal now. Thanks, --Konstantin On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 4:28 PM, Konstantin Shvachko shv.had...@gmail.comwrote: Hi Arun, I am agnostic about version numbers too, as long as the count goes up. The discussion you are referring

Re: Heads up - 2.0.5-beta

On Wed, May 1, 2013 at 1:15 PM, Arun C Murthy a...@hortonworks.com wrote: On Apr 30, 2013, at 4:28 PM, Konstantin Shvachko wrote: If the next release has to be 2.0.5 I would like to make an alternative proposal, which would include - stabilization of current 2.0.4 - making all API

Re: Heads up - 2.0.5-beta

, Konstantin Shvachko wrote: On Wed, May 1, 2013 at 1:15 PM, Arun C Murthy a...@hortonworks.com wrote: On Apr 30, 2013, at 4:28 PM, Konstantin Shvachko wrote: If the next release has to be 2.0.5 I would like to make an alternative proposal, which would include - stabilization

Re: Heads up - 2.0.5-beta

On Thu, May 2, 2013 at 12:07 AM, Chris Douglas cdoug...@apache.org wrote: Can anyone remember why we vote on release plans? -C To vote on features to include in the release. Thanks, --Konstantin

Re: Heads up - 2.0.5-beta

Hi Arun and Suresh, I am glad my choice of words attracted your attention. I consider this important for the project otherwise I wouldn't waste everybody's time. You tend reacting on a latest message taken out of context, which does not reveal full picture. I'll try here to summarize my proposal

Re: [VOTE] - Release 2.0.5-beta

have had such experience. A clarification on categorizing this action and on voting practices from ASF may help. Thanks, --Konstantin On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 3:36 PM, Konstantin Shvachko shv.had...@gmail.comwrote: Arun, I am glad I at least convinced you to finally announce your release

Re: [VOTE] - Release 2.0.5-beta

-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

Re: [VOTE] - Release 2.0.5-beta

. Neither are they interested or equipped to tell us how to partition releases of Hadoop. This is routine development, we are failing at it, but we will recover by eliminating this pointless ritual and getting back to producing software. -C On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 1:10 PM, Konstantin Shvachko

Re: [PROPOSAL] change in bylaws to remove Release Plan vote

Couldn't reply yesterday. I will try to argue this is a useful action and that keeping it in Bylaws does not change regular release process. - Bylaws do not require to vote on every release plan. If nobody complains then it is a routine process of building a RC and voting on it. - It is useful to

Re: [DISCUSS] Ensuring Consistent Behavior for Alternative Hadoop FileSystems + Workshop

Makes sense, Steve. There are a couple of guys here at WANdisco who will be interested in joining. Thanks, --Konstantin On Fri, May 24, 2013 at 10:15 AM, Milind Bhandarkar mbhandar...@gopivotal.com wrote: Thanks for the initiative, Steve. A few folks from Pivotal and our partners would be

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Hadoop 2.0.4.1-alpha

+1 I verified checksums, the signature, built sources on CentOS, ran tests and a few hadoop commands. Thanks, --Konst On Fri, May 24, 2013 at 8:48 PM, Konstantin Boudnik c...@apache.org wrote: All, I have created a release candidate (rc0) for hadoop-2.0.4.1-alpha that I would like to

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Hadoop 2.0.4.1-alpha

Why not call this 2.0.5-alpha? Technically, current branch-2 uses 2.0.5-SNAPSHOT and produces maven artifacts with that version. So having another version with the same numbers will be confusing. Therefore 4-level numbers. I thought I mentioned it to you before. Thanks, --Konst On Thu, May

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Hadoop 2.0.5-alpha (rc1)

+1 Did basic verification and testing. Thanks, --Konst On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 9:27 PM, Konstantin Boudnik c...@apache.org wrote: All, I have created a release candidate (rc1) for hadoop-2.0.5-alpha that I would like to release. This is a stabilization release that includes fixed for a

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Hadoop 2.0.5-alpha (rc2)

+1 Thanks, --Konst On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 12:51 PM, Konstantin Boudnik c...@apache.org wrote: I have rolled out release candidate (rc2) for hadoop-2.0.5-alpha. The difference between rc1 and rc2 is the optimistic release date is set for 06/06/2013 in the CHANGES.txt files. The binary

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Hadoop 0.23.8

+1 I did basic verification and testing of the rc. Thanks, --Konst On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 9:00 AM, Thomas Graves tgra...@yahoo-inc.comwrote: I've created a release candidate (RC0) for hadoop-0.23.8 that I would like to release. This release is a sustaining release with several important

Re: Upgrade to protobuf 2.5.0 for the 2.1.0 release, HADOOP-9845

Ok. After installing protobuf 2.5.0 I can compile trunk. But now I cannot compile Hadoop-2 branches. None of them. So if I switch between branches I need to reinstall protobuf? Is there a consensus about going towards protobuf 2.5.0 upgrade in ALL versions? I did not get definite impression there

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Hadoop 2.0.6-alpha

+1 Verified checksums, signatures. Checked release notes. Built the sources and ran tests. Started a small cluster. Tried hadoop commands, ran a few jobs. Thanks, --Konst On Sat, Aug 10, 2013 at 5:46 PM, Konstantin Boudnik c...@apache.org wrote: All, I have created a release candidate

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Hadoop 2.0.6-alpha (RC1)

+1 Did the same as with rc0. Works for me. Thanks, --Konst On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 10:29 PM, Konstantin Boudnik c...@apache.org wrote: All, I have created a release candidate (rc1) for hadoop-2.0.6-alpha that I would like to release. This is a stabilization release that includes fixed

Re: Changes to HDFS configuration keys for 21 release

+1. Good plan. --Konstantin Jitendra Nath Pandey wrote: Hi, The changes to configuration keys in HDFS for 21 release are scheduled to be checked in along with the append changes. This change was delayed because configuration changes are too many and merging append code on top of them

Re: HDFS-758 in Hadoop-21 , Updates to Namenode health page

+1 I am in favor of committing this to 0.21 because imo it is not a new HDFS feature but rather an improvement of web UI. Allen Wittenauer wrote: Then you'll have no issues patching other things in 0.21 that are actual bug fixes that also meet this criteria, right? Or does this only apply

Re: Namespace partitioning using Locality Sensitive Hashing

Hi Ketan, AFAIU, hashing is used to map files and directories into different name-nodes. Suppose you use a simple hash function on a file path h(path), and that files with the same hash value (or within a hash range) are mapped to the same name-node. Then files with the same parent will be

Re: Namespace partitioning using Locality Sensitive Hashing

Symlinks is a brand new feature in HDFS. You can read about it in https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HDFS-245 Documentation is here: https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/attachment/12434745/design-doc-v4.txt Symbolic links in HDFS can point to a directory in a different file system,

Re: [DISCUSSION] Release process

HDFS 0.20 does not have a reliable append. Also it is (was last time I looked) incompatible with the 0.21 append HDFS-256. That wouldn't be a problem if that was the only incompatibility. But it's not. If 1.0 is re-labeled or re-branched from 0.20 we will have to many incompatibilities going

Re: [DISCUSSION] Release process

On 3/31/2010 2:19 PM, Doug Cutting wrote: Konstantin Shvachko wrote: I would like to propose a straightforward release of 0.21 from current 0.21 branch. That could be done too. Would you like to volunteer to drive a release from the current 0.21 branch? I would If I could. I intended

Re: Multi-Master Hadoop Configuration

Yes. Only one master, called name-node, is managing HDFS, and only one master, called job tracker, is managing MapReduce cluster. You can also read some online documentation, may be even publications. Thanks, --Konstantin On Wed, Oct 27, 2010 at 3:28 PM, Wang, Chengwei wan...@gatech.edu wrote:

Hadoop-common-trunk-Commit is failing since 01/19/2011

I see Hadoop-common-trunk-Commit is failing and not sending any emails. It times out on native compilation and aborts. Therefore changes are not integrated, and now it lead to hdfs and mapreduce both not compiling. Can somebody please take a look at this. The last few lines of the build are below.

Re: Hadoop-common-trunk-Commit is failing since 01/19/2011

is MAPREDUCE-2290, which was fixed. Trees from trunk are compiling against each other for me (eg each installed to a local maven repo), perhaps the upstream maven repo hasn't been updated with the latest bits yet. Thanks, Eli On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 12:14 PM, Konstantin Shvachko

VOTE: Committing HADOOP-6949 to 0.22 branch

HADOOP-6949 introduced a very important optimization to the RPC layer. Based on the benchmarks presented in HDFS-1583 this provides an order of magnitude improvement of current RPC implementation. RPC is a common component of Hadoop projects. Many of them should benefit from this change. But since

Re: VOTE: Committing HADOOP-6949 to 0.22 branch

identical builds. No application that ran with a prior version of Hadoop would be broken by this change when it upgrades to this version of Hadoop. Doug On 03/28/2011 09:39 PM, Konstantin Shvachko wrote: HADOOP-6949 introduced a very important optimization to the RPC layer. Based

Re: [VOTE] Release candidate 0.20.203.0-rc0

the tests. Thanks, --Konstantin On Tue, May 3, 2011 at 1:39 AM, Konstantin Shvachko shv.had...@gmail.comwrote: I think its a good idea to release hadoop-0.20.203. It moves Apache Hadoop a step forward. Looks like the technical difficulties are resolved now with latest Arun's commits. Being

Hadoop and HBase to common Avro base

Guys, Joep is trying to converge Hadoop and HBase under the common Avro version. Seems like a reasonable direction. Could the specialists please take a look. https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HADOOP-7646 Thanks, --Konstantin

[ANNOUNCEMENT] Apache Hadoop 0.22.0 release

On December 10, 2011 Hadoop PMC voted to release Hadoop 0.22.0 See http://s.apache.org/COC The release have been brewing for one year. It incorporates over 700 jiras fixed since the release of 0.21.0. It is good to have it finalized. Please note that 0.22.0 release does not support security. For

Re: [ANNOUNCEMENT] Apache Hadoop 0.22.0 release

PM, Konstantin Shvachko shv.had...@gmail.comwrote: On December 10, 2011 Hadoop PMC voted to release Hadoop 0.22.0 See http://s.apache.org/COC The release have been brewing for one year. It incorporates over 700 jiras fixed since the release of 0.21.0. It is good to have it finalized

Re: [ANNOUNCEMENT] Apache Hadoop 0.22.0 release

thread but does this become 2.0 then? Tom On 12/12/11 2:33 PM, Konstantin Shvachko shv.had...@gmail.com wrote: On December 10, 2011 Hadoop PMC voted to release Hadoop 0.22.0 See http://s.apache.org/COC The release have been brewing for one year. It incorporates over 700 jiras fixed since

Re: HADOOP JIRA near full of contributors, error message not helpful

Had the same problem recently. BTW it's the same for common and HDFS. I ended up adding contributors via jira CLI. Worked well. I guess it's the web UI limitation. Thought this may be useful for others. Thanks, --Konst On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 11:30 AM, Jakob Homan jgho...@gmail.com wrote:

Introducing ConsensusNode and a Coordination Engine

Hello hadoop developers, I just opened two jiras proposing to introduce ConsensusNode into HDFS and a Coordination Engine into Hadoop Common. The latter should benefit HDFS and HBase as well as potentially other projects. See HDFS-6469 and HADOOP-10641 for details. The effort is based on the

Re: [VOTE] Change by-laws on release votes: 5 days instead of 7

+1 Thanks, --Konstantin On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 1:53 AM, Arun C Murthy a...@hortonworks.com wrote: Folks, As discussed, I'd like to call a vote on changing our by-laws to change release votes from 7 days to 5. I've attached the change to by-laws I'm proposing. Please vote, the vote

Re: Meetup invitation: Consensus based replication in Hadoop

:09PM, Konstantin Shvachko wrote: Hello hadoop developers, I just opened two jiras proposing to introduce ConsensusNode into HDFS and a Coordination Engine into Hadoop Common. The latter should benefit HDFS and HBase as well as potentially other projects. See HDFS-6469

Re: Meetup invitation: Consensus based replication in Hadoop

Ok, or Cos. On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 4:41 PM, Konstantin Shvachko shv.had...@gmail.com wrote: Few people asked about pick up from Bart. We can organize pick up from either West Dublin/Pleasanton Station or Walnut Creek Station. Whichever gets more requests until Monday 07/14. Please ping me

Re: a friendly suggestion for developers when uploading patches

Hello guys, The problem here is not in a patch naming conventions, but in the jira default ordering schema for attachments. Mentioned it on several occasions. Currently attachments use sort by name sorting as the default. And it should be changed to sort by date. Then you don't need any naming

Re: a friendly suggestion for developers when uploading patches

in the order that they were submitted. Best regards, --Yongjun On Sat, Dec 13, 2014 at 10:54 AM, Konstantin Shvachko shv.had...@gmail.com wrote: Hello guys, The problem here is not in a patch naming conventions, but in the jira default ordering schema for attachments

Re: a friendly suggestion for developers when uploading patches

about local downloads. If you want to push on the INFRA JIRA though, please feel free. I'm +1 for that. Best, Andrew On Mon, Dec 15, 2014 at 11:40 AM, Konstantin Shvachko shv.had...@gmail.com wrote: Guys, I agree that revision numbers are useful if you need to reference

[DISCUSS] Porting truncate to branch 2.

Hey devs, This is to discuss whether new truncate feature should be ported to branch 2. Colin suggested in HDFS-3071 that we merge it in a week or two. Makes sense to me too. That way we can get it out in one of the next releases. Please raise your issues, concerns, or support here. Do we need

Re: Looking to a Hadoop 3 release

Andrew, Hadoop 3 seems in general like a good idea to me. 1. I did not understand if you propose to release 3.0 instead of 2.7 or in addition? I think 2.7 is needed at least as a stabilization step for the 2.x line. 2. If Hadoop 3 and 2.x are meant to exist together, we run a risk to manifest

Re: DISCUSSION: Patch commit criteria.

end up making a small javadoc/documentation change in the last version of patch before committing. It just avoids one more cycle and more delay. It's hard to codify this distinction though. Thanks +Vinod On Feb 27, 2015, at 1:04 PM, Konstantin Shvachko shv.had...@gmail.com wrote

DISCUSSION: Patch commit criteria.

There were discussions on several jiras and threads recently about how RTC actually works in Hadoop. My opinion has always been that for a patch to be committed it needs an approval (+1) of at least one committer other than the author and no -1s. The Bylaws seem to be stating just that: Consensus

Re: [DISCUSS] Release numbering for stable 2.8 and beyond

I don't think it makes sense to imprint the release quality with its version. They should be separate. And our recommendation for the quality can be reflected in the documentation. (1) is the way to go. We had alpha imprinted in 2.0.5-alpha version, but both 2.0.5 and 2.0.6 releases were quite

Re: Jenkins precommit-*-build

Thank you Allen! --Konst On Tue, May 5, 2015 at 5:14 PM, Allen Wittenauer a...@altiscale.com wrote: HDFS, MAPREDUCE, and YARN have been migrated. Let me know of any issues and I’ll try to get to them as I can. This should be the end of the Jenkins race conditions for our pre commits!

Re: Why I don't trust the git log: a fun git log challenge

A proper precommit hook could have prevented YARN-2666 mishap. On Tue, Apr 7, 2015 at 9:55 AM, Allen Wittenauer a...@altiscale.com wrote: On Apr 7, 2015, at 8:56 AM, Allen Wittenauer a...@altiscale.com wrote: Find and fix the mistake made in the past 24 hours to the git log (and

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Hadoop 2.7.2 RC0

Sorry for bringing this up late. I think we should pick up HDFS-9516 for this release. Rather critical bug fix, but up to you, Vinod. Thanks, --Konst On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 8:31 PM, Vinod Kumar Vavilapalli wrote: > Hi all, > > > I've created a release candidate RC0 for

Re: [Important] Lots of 2.8.0 commits are in branch-2 only

Sounds like branch-2.8 was cut off prematurely. What is the point of forking off if the release is not imminent. We don't want this thing branching like a banyan again, with each commit going into 5 branches. I think it would be easier to retire branch-2.8 for now, and reset it to branch-2.9 when

Re: [DISCUSS] Release numbering semantics with concurrent (>2) releases [Was Setting JIRA fix versions for 3.0.0 releases]

1. I probably missed something but I didn't get it how "alpha"s made their way into release numbers again. This was discussed on several occasions and I thought the common perception was to use just three level numbers for release versioning and avoid branding them. It is particularly confusing to

Re: [DISCUSS] Release numbering semantics with concurrent (>2) releases [Was Setting JIRA fix versions for 3.0.0 releases]

On Thu, Aug 4, 2016 at 11:20 AM, Andrew Wang <andrew.w...@cloudera.com> wrote: > Hi Konst, thanks for commenting, > > On Wed, Aug 3, 2016 at 11:29 PM, Konstantin Shvachko <shv.had...@gmail.com > > wrote: > >> 1. I probably missed something but I didn't get

[VOTE] Release Apache Hadoop 2.7.4 (RC0)

Hi everybody, Here is the next release of Apache Hadoop 2.7 line. The previous stable release 2.7.3 was available since 25 August, 2016. Release 2.7.4 includes 264 issues fixed after release 2.7.3, which are critical bug fixes and major optimizations. See more details in Release Note:

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Hadoop 2.7.4 (RC0)

anyways, so no worries there. I think though it would be useful to have it working for testing and as a packaging standard. Thanks, --Konstantin On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 11:40 AM, Allen Wittenauer <a...@effectivemachines.com > wrote: > > > On Jul 31, 2017, at 11:20 AM, Konstantin Sh

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Hadoop 2.7.4 (RC0)

5 messagebus 4096 Jul 30 03:01 src > > > > --Brahma Reddy Battula > > -Original Message- > From: Konstantin Shvachko [mailto:shv.had...@gmail.com] > Sent: 30 July 2017 07:29 > To: common-dev@hadoop.apache.org; hdfs-...@hadoop.apache.org; > mapreduce-...@hadoop.a

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Hadoop 2.7.4 (RC0)

/jmx, /conf, /logLevel, and /stacks. It passed in branch-2.8. > > > On Sat, Jul 29, 2017 at 4:29 PM, Konstantin Shvachko <shv.had...@gmail.com > > wrote: > >> Hi everybody, >> >> Here is the next release of Apache Hadoop 2.7 line. The previous stable >>

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Hadoop 2.7.4 (RC0)

://wiki.apache.org/hadoop/HowToReleasePreDSBCR#Publishing Thanks, --Konst On Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 11:36 PM, Akira Ajisaka <aajis...@apache.org> wrote: > Thanks Konstantin for the work! > I have a question: Where are the maven artifacts deployed? > > -Akira > > On 2017/07/30 8

Re: About 2.7.4 Release

more testing is still going on. I plan to build an RC next week. If there are no objection. Thanks, --Konst On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 4:42 PM, Konstantin Shvachko <shv.had...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hey guys. > > An update on 2.7.4 progress. > We are down to 4 blockers. There is s

Re: Pre-Commit build is failing

wrote: > > > On Jul 21, 2017, at 5:46 PM, Konstantin Shvachko <shv.had...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > + d...@yetus.apache.org > > > > Guys, could you please take a look. Seems like Yetus problem with > > pre-commit build for branch-2.7. > > > branch-2.7 is missing stuff in .gitignore.

Re: Pre-Commit build is failing

+ d...@yetus.apache.org Guys, could you please take a look. Seems like Yetus problem with pre-commit build for branch-2.7. Thanks, --Konstantin On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 7:19 PM, Brahma Reddy Battula < brahmareddy.batt...@huawei.com> wrote: > Looks this problem is in only branc-2.7.. > > >

Re: Pre-Commit build is failing

Allen, Should we add "patchprocess/" to .gitignore, is that the problem for 2.7? Thanks, --Konstantin On Fri, Jul 21, 2017 at 6:24 PM, Konstantin Shvachko <shv.had...@gmail.com> wrote: > What stuff? Is there a jira? > It did work like a week ago. Is it a new Yetus requir

Re: Pre-Commit build is failing

Or should we backport the entire HADOOP-11917 <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HADOOP-11917> ? Thanks, --Konst On Mon, Jul 24, 2017 at 6:56 PM, Konstantin Shvachko <shv.had...@gmail.com> wrote: > Allen, > > Should we add "patchprocess/" to .gitigno

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Hadoop 2.7.4 (RC0)

Thursday, August 3, 2017, 7:19:07 AM CDT, Sunil G <sun...@apache.org> >>> wrote: >>> >>> >>> Thanks Konstantin >>> >>> +1 (binding) >>> >>> 1. Build tar ball from source package >>> 2. Ran basic MR jobs and verif

[RESULT] [VOTE] Release Apache Hadoop 2.7.4 (RC0)

Chris Douglas Konstantin Shvachko Non-binding +1s (13) John Zhuge Surendra Lilhore Masatake Iwasaki Hanisha Koneru Chen Liang Fnu Ajay Kumar Brahma Reddy Battula Edwina Lu Ye Zhou Eric Badger Mingliang Liu Kuhu Shukla Erik Krogen Thanks, --Konstantin On Sat, Jul 29, 2017 at 4:29 PM, Konstantin

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Hadoop 2.7.4 (RC0)

egal/release-policy.html goes into this in more > detail. A release must minimally include source packages, and can also > include binary artifacts. > > Best, > Andrew > > On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 12:30 PM, Konstantin Shvachko < > shv.had...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> T

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Hadoop 2.7.4 (RC0)

Uploaded new binaries hadoop-2.7.4-RC0.tar.gz, which adds lib/native/. Same place: http://home.apache.org/~shv/hadoop-2.7.4-RC0/ Thanks, --Konstantin On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 3:56 PM, Chris Douglas <cdoug...@apache.org> wrote: > On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 3:02 PM, Konstantin Shvachko &

Re: Are binary artifacts are part of a release?

The issue was discussed on several occasions in the past. Took me a while to dig this out as an example: http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/hadoop-general/20.mbox/%3C4EB0827C.6040204%40apache.org%3E Doug Cutting: "Folks should not primarily evaluate binaries when voting. The ASF

Re: Are binary artifacts are part of a release?

It does not. Just adding historical references, as Andrew raised the question. On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 7:38 PM, Allen Wittenauer <a...@effectivemachines.com> wrote: > > ... that doesn't contradict anything I said. > > > On Jul 31, 2017, at 7:23 PM, Konstantin Shvachko

Re: About 2.7.4 Release

sues.apache. > org/jira/browse/HDFS-11742 definitely was something that was deemed a > blocker for 2.8.2, not sure about 2.7.4. > > I’m ‘back’ - let me know if you need any help. > > Thanks > +Vinod > > On Jul 13, 2017, at 5:45 PM, Konstantin Shvachko <shv.had...@gmail.com> &

Moved remaining 16 Jiras targeted for version 2.7.4 to 2.7.5

Thanks, --Konst

Re: Moved remaining 16 Jiras targeted for version 2.7.4 to 2.7.5

And some more. On Thu, Jul 27, 2017 at 5:11 PM, Konstantin Shvachko <shv.had...@gmail.com> wrote: > Thanks, > --Konst >

Re: Pre-Commit build is failing

on branch-2.7. Could anybody please take a look and help fixing the build. This would be very helpful for the release (2.7.4) process. Thanks, --Konst On Mon, Jul 24, 2017 at 10:41 PM, Konstantin Shvachko <shv.had...@gmail.com> wrote: > Or should we backport the entire HADOOP-11917

Re: About 2.7.4 Release

at 2:30 PM, Konstantin Shvachko <shv.had...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hey Akira, > > I didn't have private filters. Most probably Jira caches something. > Your filter is in the right direction, but for some reason it lists only > 22 issues, while mine has 29. > It miss

Re: About 2.7.4 Release

works fine: https://s.apache.org/Dzg4 > I couldn't see the link. Maybe is it private filter? > > Here is a link I generated: https://s.apache.org/ehKy > This filter includes resolved issue and excludes fixversion == 2.7.4 > > Thanks and Regards, > Akira > > On 2017/05/08 19:20, Kon

Re: About 2.7.4 Release

ps://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/HADOOP/Hadoop+2.7.4 >>> >>> If you want to edit this wiki, please ping me. >>> >>> Regards, >>> Akira >>> >>> >>> On 2017/05/23 4:42, Brahma Reddy Battula wrote

Re: About 2.7.4 Release

Hey guys, I and a few of my colleagues would like to help here and move 2.7.4 release forward. A few points in this regard. 1. Reading through this thread since March 1 I see that Vinod hinted on managing the release. Vinod, if you still want the job / have bandwidth will be happy to work with

Re: About 2.7.4 Release

> On Wed, May 3, 2017 at 12:42 AM Konstantin Shvachko <shv.had...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> Hey guys, >> >> I and a few of my colleagues would like to help here and move 2.7.4 >> release >> forward. A few points in this regard. >> >> 1. Re

Re: About 2.7.4 Release

ersion to fix vulnerability in old versions > > > > Regards > Brahma Reddy Battula > > -Original Message- > From: Erik Krogen [mailto:ekro...@linkedin.com.INVALID] > Sent: 06 May 2017 02:40 > To: Konstantin Shvachko > Cc: Zhe Zhang; Hadoop Common; Hdfs-dev; mapreduce-

Re: [VOTE] Merge feature branch YARN-5734 (API based scheduler configuration) to trunk, branch-3.0, branch-2

trol for who can change what configurations. > - The configuration storage backend is also pluggable. Currently an > in-memory, leveldb, and zookeeper implementation are supported. > > There were 15 subtasks completed for this feature. > > Huge thanks to everyone who helped with reviews

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Hadoop 2.9.0 (RC3)

this release has been tested on fairly large > clusters, production users can wait for a subsequent point release which > will contain fixes from further stabilization and downstream adoption." > > Hope this suffices. > > > > > On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 10:30 AM, Konst

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Hadoop 2.9.0 (RC3)

Hey guys, I don't think this has been discussed, pardon if it was. As it stands today hadoop 2.9.0 is marked as stable release. Isn't that deceptive for users? Not to diminish the quality and not to understate the effort, which was huge and very much appreciated. But it is the first in the

VOTE] Release Apache Hadoop 2.7.5 (RC0)

Hi everybody, This is the next dot release of Apache Hadoop 2.7 line. The previous one 2.7.4 was release August 4, 2017. Release 2.7.5 includes critical bug fixes and optimizations. See more details in Release Note: http://home.apache.org/~shv/hadoop-2.7.5-RC0/releasenotes.html The RC0 is

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Hadoop 2.8.3 (RC0)

> Junping > > > -- > *From:* Konstantin Shvachko <shv.had...@gmail.com> > *Sent:* Saturday, December 9, 2017 11:06 AM > *To:* Junping Du > *Cc:* common-dev@hadoop.apache.org; hdfs-...@hadoop.apache.org; > mapreduce-...@hadoop.apache.org; yarn-

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Hadoop 2.7.5 (RC1)

Here is my formal +1. Thanks, --Konstantin On Thu, Dec 7, 2017 at 7:22 PM, Konstantin Shvachko <shv.had...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi everybody, > > I updated CHANGES.txt and fixed documentation links. > Also committed MAPREDUCE-6165, which fixes a consistently failing tes

[RESULT] [VOTE] Release Apache Hadoop 2.7.5 (RC1)

Brahma Reddy Battula Eric Badger Jonathan Hung On Thu, Dec 7, 2017 at 7:22 PM, Konstantin Shvachko <shv.had...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi everybody, > > I updated CHANGES.txt and fixed documentation links. > Also committed MAPREDUCE-6165, which fixes a consistently failing tes

[RESULT] [VOTE] Release Apache Hadoop 2.7.5 (RC1)

Correction: With 7 binding and 4 non-binding +1s and no -1s the vote for Apache Release 2.7.5 passes. Thank you everybody for contributing to the release, testing it, and voting. Binding +1s Kihwal Lee Jason Lowe John Zhuge Rohith Sharma K S Eric Payne Zhe Zhang Konstantin Shvachko Non-binding

[RESULT] [VOTE] Release Apache Hadoop 2.7.5 (RC1)

Zhang Konstantin Shvachko Naganarasimha Garla Non-binding +1s Erik Krogen Brahma Reddy Battula Eric Badger Jonathan Hung >> On Thu, Dec 7, 2017 at 7:22 PM, Konstantin Shvachko <shv.had...@gmail.com >> > wrote: >> >>> Hi everybody, >>> >>>

Re: [DISCUSS] Apache Hadoop 2.7.5 Release Plan

and above, I would want to be more > cautious about it. > > On Thu, Nov 16, 2017 at 5:20 PM, Konstantin Shvachko <shv.had...@gmail.com > > wrote: > >> Hi developers, >> >> We have accumulated about 30 commits on branch-2.7. Those are mostly >> valuable bug fixes,

Re: Apache Hadoop 2.8.3 Release Plan

I would consider these two blockers for 2.8.3 as they crash NN: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HDFS-12638 https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HDFS-12832 Thanks, --Konstantin On Tue, Nov 21, 2017 at 11:16 AM, Junping Du wrote: > Thanks Andrew and Wangda for

[DISCUSS] Apache Hadoop 2.7.5 Release Plan

Hi developers, We have accumulated about 30 commits on branch-2.7. Those are mostly valuable bug fixes, minor optimizations and test corrections. I would like to propose to make a quick maintenance release 2.7.5. If there are no objections I'll start preparations. Thanks, --Konstantin

  1   2   >