Re: Randomly failing test

2012-06-07 Thread Chris Douglas
The output on MAPREDUCE-4094 is no longer available, but a failed job during an integration test could be traced to nondeterminism anywhere in that chain. The "flakiness" you observe is common to many Hadoop integration tests. The purpose of the test is to verify that 1) the merge works when some

Re: Randomly failing test

2012-06-07 Thread Chris Douglas
hat is possible(either tuning some of > the parameters or increasing child JVM memory?) > > Thanks > -- Asokan > ________ > From: Chris Douglas [cdoug...@apache.org] > Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2012 9:02 PM > To: common-dev@hadoop.apache.org >

Re: [VOTE] Hadoop 1.1.2-rc5 release candidate vote

2013-02-08 Thread Chris Douglas
+1 (binding) Looks like your key isn't in the file: https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/hadoop/common/dist/KEYS Could you add it? Signature is good (from pgp.mit.edu) and checksums match. Ran some of the unit tests, looked through the changelog and repo log, looks good. There's a -bin target and ano

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

2013-03-01 Thread Chris Douglas
Konstantin- There's no debate on the necessity 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,

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

2013-03-01 Thread Chris Douglas
On Fri, Mar 1, 2013 at 1:57 PM, Konstantin Shvachko wrote: > Commitment is a good thing. > I think the two builds that I proposed are a prerequisite for Win support. > If we commit windows patch people will start breaking it the next day. > Which we wont know without the nightly build and wont be

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Hadoop 0.23.7

2013-04-17 Thread Chris Douglas
+1 Verified checksums and signatures, ran some tests, built the tarball. -C On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 12:55 PM, Thomas Graves wrote: > I've created a release candidate (RC0) for hadoop-0.23.7 that I would like > to release. > > This release is a sustaining release with several important bug fixes

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Hadoop 2.0.4-alpha

2013-04-17 Thread Chris Douglas
+1 Verified checksum, signatures. Ran some tests, built the package. -C On Fri, Apr 12, 2013 at 2:56 PM, Arun C Murthy wrote: > Folks, > > I've created a release candidate (RC2) for hadoop-2.0.4-alpha that I would > like to release. > > The RC is available at: > http://people.apache.org/~acmur

Re: Heads up - 2.0.5-beta

2013-05-02 Thread Chris Douglas
On Wed, May 1, 2013 at 6:24 PM, Arun C Murthy wrote: > Having a strict policy leads to all sorts of further dialogues and issues we > could do well without. +1 Can anyone remember why we vote on release plans? -C

Re: Heads up - 2.0.5-beta

2013-05-02 Thread Chris Douglas
On Thu, May 2, 2013 at 2:11 AM, Konstantin Shvachko wrote: > On Thu, May 2, 2013 at 12:07 AM, Chris Douglas wrote: >> Can anyone remember why we vote on release plans? -C > > To vote on features to include in the release. Since most features are developed in branches (requiri

Re: [VOTE] Hadoop release candidate 1.2.0-rc1

2013-05-13 Thread Chris Douglas
+1 on hadoop-1.2.0.tar.gz (verified checksums, signature, ran some unit tests) but hadoop-1.2.0-bin.tar.gz is missing the source code and can't be built. -C On Mon, May 6, 2013 at 11:11 AM, Matt Foley wrote: > Hi all, > I have posted the signed tarballs for Hadoop 1.2.0-rc1 at > http://people.ap

Re: [VOTE] Hadoop release candidate 1.2.0-rc1

2013-05-13 Thread Chris Douglas
t;binaries") and deliberately excludes the source >> and docs, for those who wish a smaller tarball of binaries only. The >> artifacts in both are from the same build. >> >> So I'll take your +1 on the source tarball :-) >> Thanks, >> --Matt >> >&

Re: [VOTE] Hadoop release candidate 1.2.0-rc1

2013-05-13 Thread Chris Douglas
e the > project, and certainly goes against the tradition of common usage in > opensource projects, including many Apache projects. > > Respectfully, > --Matt > > > > On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 2:01 PM, Chris Douglas wrote: > >> Thanks, Matt. As always, your work o

Re: [VOTE] Hadoop release candidate 1.2.0-rc1

2013-05-13 Thread Chris Douglas
and run a vote again. > > Regardless, I will going forward change the build.xml file to produce a > pure source tarball so that can be the unambiguous subject of the vote. > > Roy, if you're listening in, can you please say whether I need to re-do > this vote? > > Than

Re: Bugfix release 2.0.4.1

2013-05-14 Thread Chris Douglas
Added to HADOOP, HDFS, MAPREDUCE, and YARN. -C On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 11:03 AM, Konstantin Boudnik wrote: > I'd like to spin-off a bugfix release for 2.0.4-alpha containing fix for > MAPREDUCE-5240 > Vinod has the fix on branch-2 already, so it seems like a no-brainer backport. > > However, th

Re: [VOTE] - Release 2.0.5-beta

2013-05-15 Thread Chris Douglas
+1 (binding) on the proposal. However, the value we get from these "release plan" votes is dubious, to put it mildly. The surrounding discussion has cost more than it is worth, and votes on executive summaries of releases discourage the sort of detailed collaboration we're trying to create. It rep

Re: [VOTE] - Release 2.0.5-beta

2013-05-18 Thread Chris Douglas
The "release plan" vote is not binding in any way. Nobody "lost" a vote, or risks having an outcome reversed, because there are no consequences to these exercises. Konstantin, I've been trying to tell you for more than a week that you can go forward without anyone's blessing or consent. There are

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

2013-05-21 Thread Chris Douglas
+1 Thanks for taking care of this, Matt. -C On Tue, 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 prop

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Hadoop 2.0.4.1-alpha

2013-05-28 Thread Chris Douglas
+1 Checksum and signature match, ran some unit tests, verified w/ a diff of release-2.0.4-alpha that the release contains MAPREDUCE-5240 and HADOOP-9407, plus some fixups to the release notes. -C On Fri, May 24, 2013 at 8:48 PM, Konstantin Boudnik wrote: > All, > > I have created a release candi

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Hadoop 2.0.4.1-alpha

2013-05-30 Thread Chris Douglas
On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 10:57 AM, Arun C Murthy wrote: > Why not include MAPREDUCE-4211 as well rather than create one release per > patch? >From Cos's description, it sounded like these were backports of fixes to help Sqoop2 and fix some build issues. If it's not just to fixup leftover bugs in

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Hadoop 2.0.4.1-alpha

2013-05-30 Thread Chris Douglas
n. I changed my vote instead of trusting you. -C > On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 01:48PM, Chris Douglas wrote: >> On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 10:57 AM, Arun C Murthy wrote: >> > Why not include MAPREDUCE-4211 as well rather than create one release per >> > patch? >> >>

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Hadoop 2.0.4.1-alpha

2013-05-30 Thread Chris Douglas
based on recent experience I don't expect you to forgo it. I'd be happy to learn my caution is unnecessary. -C >> > On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 01:48PM, Chris Douglas wrote: >> >> On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 10:57 AM, Arun C Murthy >> >> wrote: >> >

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Hadoop 2.0.4.1-alpha

2013-05-30 Thread Chris Douglas
; Can we limit the vote thread to the merits of the release then? Happily. > That sound like adding an insult to injury, if my forth-language skills do not > mislead me. They do mislead you, or I've expressed the point imprecisely. We can take this offline. -C >> >> > On

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

2013-06-03 Thread Chris Douglas
+1 Checksum and signature match, ran some unit tests, checked diff against 2.0.4-alpha. Thanks for seeing this through, Cos. -C On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 1:13 PM, Alejandro Abdelnur wrote: > +1 RC2. Verified MD5 & signature, checked CHANGES.txt files, built, > configured pseudo cluster, run a coup

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Hadoop 0.23.8

2013-06-03 Thread Chris Douglas
+1 Checksum and signature match, ran some tests. -C On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 1:19 PM, Sandy Ryza wrote: > +1 (non-binding). Did a full build from source and ran a few sample jobs > on a pseudo-distributed cluster. > > -Sandy > > > On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 11:29 AM, Kihwal Lee wrote: > >> +1 I've d

Re: Apache git mirrors, post project split

2009-06-29 Thread Chris Douglas
> How about pre-announce a planned deletion some months ahead, give people > time to migrate off If the repository has been cloned, are there any operations that require the remote? We could leave the old mirror there to be polled for updates- which it will never have- but I was under the impressi

Re: [VOTE] Back-port TFile to Hadoop 0.20

2009-07-07 Thread Chris Douglas
+1

Re: Contributing a New FileSystem Implementation - Questions About Process

2009-08-10 Thread Chris Douglas
>> * Should we integrate with the 0.18 branch, or just put our changes into >> the >> 0.18.3 release? We're not sure if there are plans for further releases on >> the 0.18  branch. This will not be committed to the 0.18 branch, even if there is an 0.18.4 release. If you wanted to post an 0.18 comp

Re: [VOTE] Freeze date for Common, HDFS, and MapReduce 0.21

2009-08-13 Thread Chris Douglas
+1 On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 4:04 PM, Owen O'Malley wrote: > All, >   After the discussion settled last time, it seems that HDFS needs more time > to settle append and sync. Therefore, I'd like to propose a freeze time of > 4:30 pst on 18 Sep for making the 0.21 branch for Common, HDFS, and > MapRed

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

2009-12-08 Thread Chris Douglas
On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 2:27 PM, Allen Wittenauer wrote: > On 12/7/09 2:00 PM, "Sanjay Radia" wrote: >> Allen raises a good point that the rest of the community may  not need >> some of the features that Yahoo finds useful internally. > > FWIW, I have no real issues with the change itself. I'm muc

Re: [DISCUSSION] Release process

2010-03-26 Thread Chris Douglas
> Thanks Tom for stepping up to play the RM role for a 0.21. +1 Thanks Tom. > Regarding Steve's call for what we can offer Tom to help along the > release, the little flea hbase can test its use case on 0.21.0 > candidates and we can probably take on a few of the HDFS blockers.  I > also like Ste

Re: [DISCUSSION] Release process

2010-04-01 Thread Chris Douglas
> My latest proposal, a 1.0 branch based on 0.20, contains two questions: > > 1. Should we make an Apache release that more closely corresponds to what > folks are using in production today (and will be using for a while yet)? > > 2. If we're considering the 0.20 mapreduce and filesystem APIs to be

Re: [DISCUSSION] Release process

2010-04-01 Thread Chris Douglas
> Thus far the changes suggested for a 1.0 branch are: >  - de-deprecate "classic" mapred APIs (no Jira issue yet) Why? Tom and Owen's proposal preserves compatibility with the deprecated FileSystem and mapred APIs up to 1.0. After Tom cuts a release- from either the 0.21 branch or trunk- then iss

Re: [DISCUSSION] Release process

2010-04-01 Thread Chris Douglas
>>>  - de-deprecate "classic" mapred APIs (no Jira issue yet) >> >> Why? > > So that folks can be told that if their code compiles without deprecation > warnings against 1.0 then it should work for all 1.x releases. Deprecation warnings aren't only fair notice that the API may go away. The classic

Re: [VOTE] HADOOP-6671 - To use maven for hadoop common build

2010-04-01 Thread Chris Douglas
+1 -C On Thursday, April 1, 2010, Giridharan Kesavan wrote: > > I  would like call for a vote to created a development branch of common > trunk to work on mavenizing hadoop common. > > -Giri >

Re: [DISCUSSION] Release process

2010-04-05 Thread Chris Douglas
le, performance or compatibility with future features may be limited if they insist on the "classic" APIs. -C > Daniel > > On 04/01/10 19:23, Chris Douglas wrote: >>>>> >>>>>  - de-deprecate "classic" mapred APIs (no Jira issue yet) >>&

Re: [DISCUSSION] Release process

2010-04-05 Thread Chris Douglas
> Actually, from my perspective, re the 0.20 branch, they are not preferred > alternatives and are not complete as more were introduced into .21 (of which > many are wrappers around the stable apis for sake of transition). Sorry, I must have been unclear, because this is part of the argument. Fi

Re: [DISCUSSION] Release process

2010-04-06 Thread Chris Douglas
> We've long-delayed declaring 1.0 because we were afraid to commit to > supporting a given API for a longer term.  Now folks are willing to make > that long-term commitment to an API, yet seem reluctant to call it 1.0. The commitment is to the new APIs. "Folks" are reluctant to cut a release with

Re: Using git grafts to merge history across project split

2011-01-05 Thread Chris Douglas
This is great. Thanks, Todd. -C On Wed, Jan 5, 2011 at 12:36 PM, Todd Lipcon wrote: > I know many people use git, so wanted to share a neat tip I figured out this > morning that lets you graft the pre-split history into the post-split > repositories. I'm using git 1.7.1, not sure how new these fe

Re: Sync-marker in uncompressed sequenceFile

2011-03-21 Thread Chris Douglas
It's used to align input splits of the SequenceFile. A reader can start at an arbitrary offset, then find the boundary of the next block of records by looking for the sync marker defined in the header. -C On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 7:40 AM, Weishung Chung wrote: > Hello my fellow Hadoop users/develo

Re: Starting 0.20-security-204 branch

2011-04-24 Thread Chris Douglas
On Fri, Apr 22, 2011 at 10:17 PM, Allen Wittenauer wrote: >        Could someone actually take the branch and try to install from > scratch?  i.e., not copy a pre-existing config.  I found a multitude of > problems with 203 doing this, but haven't had a chance to file JIRAs for all > of them.  

Re: [VOTE] Release candidate 0.20.203.0-rc0

2011-05-01 Thread Chris Douglas
+1 Signature matches, md5/sha1 match. Also tried a basic HDFS upgrade from 0.20.2 to 0.20.203 with fresh configs on a single node: all OK, including rollback to 0.20.2. -C On Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 4:09 PM, Owen O'Malley wrote: > I think everything is ready to go on the 0.20.203.0 release. It incl

Re: HADOOP-6835 concat gzip/bzip2

2011-06-13 Thread Chris Douglas
Yes to both. I haven't tested the concat bzip2 support, but I've heard it's broken. The commit log and release note for the issue are correct on HADOOP-6835. You'll make me regret saying this, but always feel free to edit JIRA titles that don't accurately reflect the content of the issue. -C On M

Re: Github integration for Hadoop

2015-11-01 Thread Chris Douglas
Wow, this happened quickly. Owen, could you please create a Wiki describing the proposal and cataloging infra references so others can understand the implementation in detail? Even after reading this thread, I'm still confused what changes this proposes and how the integration works. A document pa

Re: Update BUILDING.txt instructions for Eclipse

2015-12-03 Thread Chris Douglas
What does it mean for the project to "retire... and donate [the plugin] to the Mojohaus project"? The plugin will still be available, but not maintained by Apache Maven? Unless there is a satisfactory replacement for eclim, I'm stuck with eclipse... -C On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 2:31 PM, Andrew Wang

Re: Hadoop encryption module as Apache Chimera incubator project

2016-02-04 Thread Chris Douglas
nges >>and uncertainties in where and how it should go, thus more risk in >>stalling. >> >>>> If the encryption libraries are the only ones you're interested in >>>>pulling out, then Apache Commons does seem like a better target than a >>>>separa

Re: Branch policy question

2016-03-23 Thread Chris Douglas
CTR is- and always has been- admissible in a branch. On Wed, Mar 23, 2016 at 2:11 PM, Steve Loughran wrote: > Given that only one +1 is needed to merge a non-branch patch, he could in > theory convert the entire branch into a single .patch for review. Not that > I'd encourage that, just observi

Re: Branch policy question

2016-03-27 Thread Chris Douglas
On Sat, Mar 26, 2016 at 7:08 AM, Steve Loughran wrote: > Oh,I concur: but as we allow a single +1 for stuff done on, say, github, > we've actually got a higher standard for merging in patches from forks within > the ASF repo than there are from outside. The standard is the same. Merging a major

Re: Looking to a Hadoop 3 release

2016-04-23 Thread Chris Douglas
If we're not starting branch-3/trunk, what would distinguish it from trunk/trunk-incompat? Is it the same mechanism with different labels? That may be a reasonable strategy when we create branch-3, as a release branch for beta. Releasing 3.x from trunk will help us figure out which incompatibiliti

Re: every JIRA is now getting a no-longer-employed message

2016-05-05 Thread Chris Douglas
I unsubscribed Randy from common-dev@. -C On Thu, May 5, 2016 at 6:36 AM, Mark Holderbaugh wrote: > FYI Randy is no longer with Yahoo.I will ping Yahoo Inc IT to try and get his > account to stop responding > It will also be great if a moderator for common-dev and maybe other email > lists to

Re: Why there are so many revert operations on trunk?

2016-06-06 Thread Chris Douglas
Reading through HDFS-9924, a request for a design doc- and a -1 on committing to trunk- was raised in mid-May, but commits to trunk continued. Why is that? Shouldn't this have paused while the details were discussed? Branching is neutral to the pace of feature development, but consensus on the resu

Re: [VOTE] Hadoop 1.2.1 release candidate 0 -- stable release

2013-07-26 Thread Chris Douglas
+1 (binding) Checksum and signature match, brought up a single-node cluster, ran some sample jobs. -C On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 2:08 PM, Matt Foley wrote: > Colleagues, > This is a stabilization release of the Hadoop-1.2 codeline. It has 18 > patches over the 1.2.0 release, which may be seen in t

Re: Release Apache Hadoop 2.0.6-alpha

2013-08-24 Thread Chris Douglas
Done. -C On Fri, Aug 23, 2013 at 8:30 PM, Konstantin Boudnik wrote: > Can anyone with admin rights in YARN JIRA project release 2.0.6-alpha version? > > Thanks, > Cos > > On Fri, Aug 23, 2013 at 11:44AM, Konstantin Boudnik wrote: >> All, >> >> I have pushed the bits of 2.0.6-alpha into the open

Re: [DISCUSS] Hadoop SSO/Token Server Components

2013-09-03 Thread Chris Douglas
On Tue, Sep 3, 2013 at 5:20 AM, Larry McCay wrote: > One outstanding question for me - how do we go about getting the branches > created? Once a group has converged on a purpose- ideally with some initial code from JIRA- please go ahead and create the feature branch in svn. There's no ceremony. -

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Hadoop 2.2.0

2013-10-09 Thread Chris Douglas
+1 Verified checksum and signature, built tarball, ran some unit tests. -C On Mon, Oct 7, 2013 at 12:00 AM, Arun C Murthy wrote: > Folks, > > I've created a release candidate (rc0) for hadoop-2.2.0 that I would like to > get released - this release fixes a small number of bugs and some > proto

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Hadoop 2.3.0

2014-02-14 Thread Chris Douglas
+1 (binding) Verified checksum, signature. Built from src, poked at single-node cluster, ran some unit tests. -C On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 6:49 AM, Arun C Murthy wrote: > Folks, > > I've created a release candidate (rc0) for hadoop-2.3.0 that I would like to > get released. > > The RC is availabl

Re: Change proposal for FileInputFormat isSplitable

2014-05-31 Thread Chris Douglas
On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 11:05 PM, Niels Basjes wrote: > How would someone create the situation you are referring to? By adopting a naming convention where the filename suffix doesn't imply that the raw data are compressed with that codec. For example, if a user named SequenceFiles foo.lzo and fo

Re: Change proposal for FileInputFormat isSplitable

2014-06-01 Thread Chris Douglas
fter the change, it could spuriously return false based on the suffix of the input files. In the prenominate example, SequenceFile is splittable, even if the codec used in each block is not. -C > Niels > On May 31, 2014 11:12 PM, "Chris Douglas" wrote: > >> On Fri, May 30, 201

Re: Change proposal for FileInputFormat isSplitable

2014-06-10 Thread Chris Douglas
On Fri, Jun 6, 2014 at 4:03 PM, Niels Basjes wrote: > and if you then give the file the .gz extension this breaks all common > sense / conventions about file names. That the suffix for all compression codecs in every context- and all future codecs- should determine whether a file can be split is

Re: Change proposal for FileInputFormat isSplitable

2014-06-11 Thread Chris Douglas
On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 1:35 AM, Niels Basjes wrote: > That's not what I meant. What I understood from what was described is that > sometimes people use an existing file extension (like .gz) for a file that > is not a gzipped file. Understood, but this change also applies to other loaded codecs,

Re: Change proposal for FileInputFormat isSplitable

2014-06-13 Thread Chris Douglas
On Fri, Jun 13, 2014 at 2:54 AM, Niels Basjes wrote: > Hmmm, people only look at logs when they have a problem. So I don't think > this would be enough. This change to the framework will cause disruptions to users, to aid InputFormat authors' debugging. The latter is a much smaller population and

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

2014-06-24 Thread Chris Douglas
+1 -C On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 1:53 AM, Arun C Murthy 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 will the usual period of 7 days.

Re: Code guidelines and bash

2014-07-27 Thread Chris Douglas
[moving to common-dev@] The 80 character limit is for legibility across dev environments. If it's impeding that goal in bash, then nobody will insist on it. Since HADOOP-9902 rewrites most of this code, the particular cases can be worked through in that JIRA. -C On Sat, Jul 26, 2014 at 12:20 PM,

Re: [VOTE] Migration from subversion to git for version control

2014-08-12 Thread Chris Douglas
+1 -C On Fri, Aug 8, 2014 at 7:57 PM, Karthik Kambatla wrote: > I have put together this proposal based on recent discussion on this topic. > > Please vote on the proposal. The vote runs for 7 days. > >1. Migrate from subversion to git for version control. >2. Force-push to be disabled on

Re: migrating private branches to the new git repo

2014-09-03 Thread Chris Douglas
On Tue, Sep 2, 2014 at 2:38 PM, Andrew Wang wrote: > Not to derail the conversation, but if CHANGES.txt is making backports more > annoying, why don't we get rid of it? It seems like we should be able to > generate it via a JIRA query, and "git log" can also be used for a quick > check (way faster

Re: migrating private branches to the new git repo

2014-09-03 Thread Chris Douglas
On Wed, Sep 3, 2014 at 11:42 AM, Allen Wittenauer wrote: > We’ll also need to get much more strict about Fix Version really only listing > the earliest version. Many of list (next release) + (trunk), myself > included, which after looking through some of the commit docs, is not correct. Is thi

Re: When are incompatible changes acceptable (HDFS-12990)

2018-01-09 Thread Chris Douglas
Particularly since 9820 isn't in the contiguous range of ports in HDFS-9427, is there any value in this change? Let's change it back to prevent the disruption to users, but downstream projects should treat this as a bug in their tests. Please open JIRAs in affected projects. -C On Tue, Jan 9, 20

Re: When are incompatible changes acceptable (HDFS-12990)

2018-01-10 Thread Chris Douglas
fects of reverting as well as incompatible minor release change. Thanks > > Regards, > Eric > > From: larry mccay > Date: Wednesday, January 10, 2018 at 10:53 AM > To: Daryn Sharp > Cc: "Aaron T. Myers" , Eric Yang , > Chris Douglas , Hadoop Common < > co

Re: When are incompatible changes acceptable (HDFS-12990)

2018-01-11 Thread Chris Douglas
that serious, why not fixing it in >4.0.0 and declare 3.x as dead? >- It seems obvious that no one has seriously tested it so that the >problem is not uncovered until now. Are there bugs in our current release >procedure? > > > Thanks > Tsz-Wo > > > &g

Re: When are incompatible changes acceptable (HDFS-12990)

2018-01-19 Thread Chris Douglas
. Users expect >> 3.0.0 and 3.0.1 are compatible. How could we explain 3.0.0 and 3.0.1 are >> incompatible due to convenience?3.2) Revert it in 4.0.0. There is no >> compatibility issue since 3.0.0 and 4.0.0 are allowed to have incompatible >> changes according to our policy. >

Re: [VOTE] Merge YARN-6592 feature branch to trunk

2018-01-26 Thread Chris Douglas
+1 Looking forward to this. -C On Fri, Jan 26, 2018 at 7:28 AM, Arun Suresh wrote: > Hello yarn-dev@ > > Based on the positive feedback from the DISCUSS thread [1], I'd like to > start a formal vote to merge YARN-6592 [2] to trunk. The vote will run for 5 > days, and will end Jan 31 7:30AM PDT. >

Re: Apache Hadoop 3.0.1 Release plan

2018-02-02 Thread Chris Douglas
On Fri, Feb 2, 2018 at 10:22 AM, Arpit Agarwal wrote: > Do you plan to roll an RC with an uncommitted fix? That isn't the right > approach. The fix will be committed to the release branch. We'll vote on the release, and if it receives a majority of +1 votes then it becomes 3.0.1. That's how the

Re: What's the difference between branch-3 and branch-3.0?

2018-02-22 Thread Chris Douglas
branch-3 has reappeared. Filed INFRA-16086 [1]. -C [1]: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-16086 On Wed, Jan 17, 2018 at 12:32 PM, Jason Lowe wrote: > I filed INFRA-15859 to have branch-3 deleted. > > Jason > > On Wed, Jan 17, 2018 at 1:23 PM, Eric Payne < > eric.payne1...@yahoo.com.in

Re: Cleaning up the Hadoop dist area

2018-03-05 Thread Chris Douglas
On Mon, Mar 5, 2018 at 1:24 PM, Owen O'Malley wrote: > The Apache Release Process > https://www.apache.org/legal/release-policy.html says > that we should only keep the latest release on each branch. That would take > us to: > > >- hadoop-1.2.1 >- hadoop-2.6.5 >- hadoop-2.7.5 >- ha

[EVENT] HDFS Bug Bash: March 12

2018-03-05 Thread Chris Douglas
[Cross-posting, as this affects the rest of the project] Hey folks- As discussed last month [1], the HDFS build hasn't been healthy recently. We're dedicating a bug bash to stabilize the build and address some longstanding issues with our unit tests. We rely on our CI infrastructure to keep the p

Re: [EVENT] HDFS Bug Bash: March 12

2018-03-06 Thread Chris Douglas
Found a meetup alternative (thanks Subru): https://meetingstar.io/event/fk13172f1d75KN So we can get a rough headcount, please add (local) if you plan to attend in-person. -C On Mon, Mar 5, 2018 at 4:03 PM, Chris Douglas wrote: > [Cross-posting, as this affects the rest of the project] >

Re: [EVENT] HDFS Bug Bash: March 12

2018-03-09 Thread Chris Douglas
eId=75965105 On Tue, Mar 6, 2018 at 7:48 PM, Chris Douglas wrote: > Found a meetup alternative (thanks Subru): > https://meetingstar.io/event/fk13172f1d75KN > > So we can get a rough headcount, please add (local) if you plan to > attend in-person. -C > > > On Mon,

Re: [EVENT] HDFS Bug Bash: March 12

2018-03-12 Thread Chris Douglas
here. > > Thanks, > > Junping > > 2018-03-05 16:03 GMT-08:00 Chris Douglas : > >> [Cross-posting, as this affects the rest of the project] >> >> Hey folks- >> >> As discussed last month [1], the HDFS build hasn't been healthy >> r

Re: [EVENT] HDFS Bug Bash: March 12

2018-03-12 Thread Chris Douglas
. -C [1]: https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=75965105 > 2018-03-05 16:03 GMT-08:00 Chris Douglas : > >> [Cross-posting, as this affects the rest of the project] >> >> Hey folks- >> >> As discussed last month [1], the HDFS build hasn't been heal

Re: [EVENT] HDFS Bug Bash: March 12

2018-03-12 Thread Chris Douglas
We're using a shared doc to track work in progress, PA/review ready, and committed [1]. -C [1]: https://s.apache.org/RLlx On Mon, Mar 12, 2018 at 9:17 AM, Chris Douglas wrote: > On Fri, Mar 9, 2018 at 7:52 PM, 俊平堵 wrote: >> Thanks for organizing this, Chris! Please let me know if

Re: [EVENT] HDFS Bug Bash: March 12

2018-03-12 Thread Chris Douglas
sue, but will double check. Let me know if there are > more meetups planned in the near future and we can use this. > > Thanks > +Vinod > > On Mar 6, 2018, at 7:48 PM, Chris Douglas wrote: > > Found a meetup alternative (thanks Subru): > https://meetingstar.io/event/fk1

Re: Cleaning up the Hadoop dist area

2018-03-13 Thread Chris Douglas
> > I also deleted the obsolete md5 files and added the preferred sha256 files. > > .. Owen > > On Mon, Mar 5, 2018 at 3:23 PM, Chris Douglas wrote: > >> On Mon, Mar 5, 2018 at 1:24 PM, Owen O'Malley >> wrote: >> > The Apache Release Process >> &g

Re: Apache Hadoop qbt Report: trunk+JDK8 on Windows/x64

2018-03-15 Thread Chris Douglas
Thanks, Allen. On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 10:20 AM, Iñigo Goiri wrote: >> * It ALWAYS applies HADOOP-14667.05.patch prior to running. As a result, >> this is only set up for trunk with no parameterization to run other >> branches. I tried to get this running in my environment a few weeks ago, but

Re: Apache Hadoop qbt Report: branch2+JDK7 on Linux/x86

2018-05-15 Thread Chris Douglas
They've been failing for a long time. It can't install bats, and that's fatal? -C On Tue, May 15, 2018 at 9:43 AM, Allen Wittenauer wrote: > > > FYI: > > I’m going to disable the branch-2 nightly jobs. > - > To unsubscribe, e-mai

Re: Apache Hadoop qbt Report: branch2+JDK7 on Linux/x86

2018-05-15 Thread Chris Douglas
re [1]. -C [1]: https://builds.apache.org/job/hadoop-qbt-branch2-java7-linux-x86/ On Tue, May 15, 2018 at 10:27 AM, Allen Wittenauer wrote: > >> On May 15, 2018, at 10:16 AM, Chris Douglas wrote: >> >> They've been failing for a long time. It can't i

Re: [DISCUSS] Branch Proposal: HADOOP 15407: ABFS

2018-05-17 Thread Chris Douglas
There's not a lot of (required) ceremony. Any committer can create the branch, including branch committers after the PMC adds them (see bylaws [1]). -C [1]: http://hadoop.apache.org/bylaws.html On Thu, May 17, 2018 at 9:16 AM, Steve Loughran wrote: > Now, what's next? I know we have the normal v

Re: Not being able to add HDFS contributors

2016-07-19 Thread Chris Douglas
I had the same problem. Infra was able to add them, but I kept getting an error. -C On Tue, Jul 19, 2016 at 2:29 PM, Zheng, Kai wrote: > Hi, > > I tried many times in the week at different time but just found it's not > possible to add more HDFS contributors. I can add some Hadoop ones, though.

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

2016-08-04 Thread Chris Douglas
I agree with Konst. The virtues of branching (instead of releasing from trunk) and using the version suffix for the 3.x releases are lost on me. Both introduce opportunities for error, in commits, in consistent JIRA tagging, in packaging... We can mark stability on the website. If someone builds a

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

2016-08-04 Thread Chris Douglas
> I'm certainly open to alternate proposals for versioning and fix versions, > but to reiterate, I like this versioning since it imitates other enterprise > software. RHEL has versions like 6.2 Beta 2 and 7.0 Beta, so versions like > 3.0.0-alpha1 will be immediately familiar to end users. Conversel

Re: [VOTE] Merge HADOOP-13341

2016-09-09 Thread Chris Douglas
+1 (also on JIRA) -C On Wed, Sep 7, 2016 at 6:44 AM, Allen Wittenauer wrote: > > I’d like to call for a vote to run for 5 days (ending Mon 12, 2016 > at 7AM PT) to merge the HADOOP-13341 feature branch into trunk. This branch > was developed exclusively by me. As usual with large shel

Re: new look site

2016-09-27 Thread Chris Douglas
Sure, I'll revert. Sorry, I'd only checked the main page, looked close enough. -C On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 10:34 AM, Andrew Wang wrote: > Can we revert that change until we can get the site fixed? > > On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 10:06 AM, Steve Loughran > wrote: > >> Things aren't laying out very wel

Re: new look site

2016-09-27 Thread Chris Douglas
Reverted, resized to the same height as the original, pushed. -C On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 11:27 AM, Chris Douglas wrote: > Sure, I'll revert. Sorry, I'd only checked the main page, looked close > enough. -C > > On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 10:34 AM, Andrew Wang > wrote: >

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Hadoop 2.6.5 (RC0)

2016-09-30 Thread Chris Douglas
+1 Verified checksum and signature. Unpacked the jar, started single-node HDFS cluster, did some cursory checks. Read through the commit log from 2.6.4; particularly happy to see HADOOP-12893. -C On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 1:28 PM, Sangjin Lee wrote: > Hi folks, > > I have created a release candida

Re: [VOTE] Release cadence and EOL

2017-01-19 Thread Chris Douglas
Sorry, I'd missed the end of the EOL discussion thread. As several people have pointed out, this is unenforceable. The release dates on the front page are a decent signal for liveness... do we need something more formal? All these hypothetical situations would be decided with more context. The "go

Re: [VOTE] Release cadence and EOL

2017-01-21 Thread Chris Douglas
On Fri, Jan 20, 2017 at 2:50 PM, Sangjin Lee wrote: > The security patch for the 2.6.x line is a case in point. Without any > guideline, we would start with "What should we do for 2.6.x? Should we > continue to patch it?" With this guideline, the baseline is already "it's > been 2 years since 2.6.

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Hadoop 3.0.0-alpha2 RC0

2017-01-23 Thread Chris Douglas
Thanks for all your work on this, Andrew. It's great to see the 3.x series moving forward. If you were willing to modify the release notes and add the LICENSE to the jar, we don't need to reset the clock on the VOTE, IMO. What's the issue with the minicluster jar [1]? I tried to reproduce, but ha

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Hadoop 3.0.0-alpha2 RC0

2017-01-24 Thread Chris Douglas
On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 9:32 PM, Allen Wittenauer wrote: > The problem here is that there is a 'license' directory and a file called > 'LICENSE'. If this gets extracted by jar via jar xf, it will fail. unzip > can be made to extract it via an option like -o. To make matters worse, none > of

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Hadoop 3.0.0-alpha2 RC0

2017-01-25 Thread Chris Douglas
On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 11:42 AM, Andrew Wang wrote: > Chris and Karthik, could you clarify the contingency of your votes? Is > fixing just the release notes sufficient? My +1 was not contingent on any changes. The release is fine as-is. Fixing any subset of the release notes, minicluster jar, a

Re: Can we update protobuf's version on trunk?

2017-03-28 Thread Chris Douglas
On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 3:04 PM, Andrew Wang wrote: > There's no mention of the convenient "Embedded messages are compatible with >> bytes if the bytes contain an encoded version of the message" semantics in >> proto3. > > > I checked the proto3 guide, and I think this is supported: > https://deve

Re: Can we update protobuf's version on trunk?

2017-03-28 Thread Chris Douglas
On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 4:18 PM, Andrew Wang wrote: > Unfortunately, it sounds like these are intrinsic differences with PB3. That's too bad... but possibly not fatal: most of the data we proxy through client code is, if not opaque, it's at least immutable (particularly tokens). If PB3 does suppo

Re: Can we update protobuf's version on trunk?

2017-03-29 Thread Chris Douglas
On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 1:13 PM, Stack wrote: > Is the below evidence enough that pb3 in proto2 syntax mode does not drop > 'unknown' fields? (Maybe you want evidence that java tooling behaves the > same?) I reproduced your example with the Java tooling, including changing some of the fields in t

  1   2   >