Sounds great! Based on my experience, deciding on the release manager
well in advance of the release date will very likely make things go
more smoothly.
Thanks for volunteering! If there's anything I can do to help, I'd
like to "pay it forward"! Ryan
On Sat, Feb 15, 2020 at 5:30 PM Michael A.
+1 It's a great idea.
On Fri, Feb 14, 2020 at 4:20 AM Ismaël Mejía wrote:
>
> Now that Avro 1.9.2 was released I wanted to propose a sort of roadmap for
> the
> next release. We already have accumulated a good chunk of new features and
> fixes
> that can be released as Avro 1.10.0. I would like
+1
This is a great idea! I like having a planned time frame for the next
release.
On Fri, Feb 14, 2020 at 4:20 AM Ismaël Mejía wrote:
> Now that Avro 1.9.2 was released I wanted to propose a sort of roadmap for
> the
> next release. We already have accumulated a good chunk of new features and
>
Now that Avro 1.9.2 was released I wanted to propose a sort of roadmap for
the
next release. We already have accumulated a good chunk of new features and
fixes
that can be released as Avro 1.10.0. I would like to propose that we cut
the
1.10.x branch in may 2020 to have a 'major' release exactly
I did a similar fight with forrest a few weeks ago trying to get pig to
build in docker.
See https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PIG-4526 for the current draft of
that.
In this case it turned out to be a case where Forrest 0.8 would fail with
strange errors when ran under a new jvm.
Where new is
Quick update: after spending way too much time fighting Forrest I've
managed to get the full build working on Docker to the point where all
tests pass and all artifacts are created and signed. (If you're
interested you can try it out by typing './build.sh docker', then
'./build.sh clean dist' in
I committed the Ruby fixes that Sean reviewed, and I've looked at
Marcin's patch. Is anyone familiar with the C implementation able to
take a look at Thomas' patch?
Thanks,
Tom
On Thu, Jul 9, 2015 at 9:30 AM, Thomas Sanchez thomas.san...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
Sorry to bust in, but if one could
Hi,
Sorry to bust in, but if one could take a final look at AVRO-1663, I'd
appreciate.
It is a minor fix.
Thanks,
2015-07-07 17:16 GMT+02:00 Sean Busbey bus...@cloudera.com:
I have done non-binding reviews on the following, if a committer could take
look:
* AVRO-1645
* AVRO-1693
On Tue,
I'd like pull request on github #38 (C++) since currently it's not possible
to serialize chars 127 to json if char is signed
it a oneline patch
/svante
2015-07-06 20:34 GMT+02:00 Ryan Blue b...@cloudera.com:
+1 for 1.8.0.
I'd like to get the date/time support and one fix to the logical
I have done non-binding reviews on the following, if a committer could take
look:
* AVRO-1645
* AVRO-1693
On Tue, Jul 7, 2015 at 8:41 AM, Tom White t...@cloudera.com wrote:
Committers - please take a look at the outstanding patch available
JIRAs for 1.7.8/1.8.0 and review and commit any that
Thanks Niels. Comments inline.
On Wed, Jul 1, 2015 at 3:50 PM, Niels Basjes ni...@basjes.nl wrote:
Hi,
I would say go for the 1.8.0
Note that there are a few issues that seem appropriate to include for
this one because they relate to a change in 'backwards compatibility:
- AVRO-1586 Build
Committers - please take a look at the outstanding patch available
JIRAs for 1.7.8/1.8.0 and review and commit any that you'd like to see
in 1.8.0:
http://s.apache.org/xXz
Thanks!
Tom
On Tue, Jul 7, 2015 at 2:34 PM, Tom White t...@cloudera.com wrote:
Thanks Niels. Comments inline.
On Wed,
Hi,
Could you please review the patch for AVRO-1673?
Thanks,
Marcin
On Tue, Jul 7, 2015, at 15:41, Tom White wrote:
Committers - please take a look at the outstanding patch available
JIRAs for 1.7.8/1.8.0 and review and commit any that you'd like to see
in 1.8.0:
http://s.apache.org/xXz
+1 for 1.8.0.
I'd like to get the date/time support and one fix to the logical types
API. The issues are:
* AVRO-1692: Allow multiple logical type representations for a class
* AVRO-1672: Adds date/time logical types and conversions
* AVRO-1684: Adds date/time types to Specific
rb
On
+1 for a 1.8.0 release. What kind of timeline for the first RC are you
looking at?
On Wed, Jul 1, 2015 at 10:00 AM, Zoltan Farkas zolyfar...@yahoo.com.invalid
wrote:
I would like to have https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AVRO-1667
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AVRO-1667 resolved
Hi everyone,
It would be good to do another Avro release soon. I'm happy to create
a release candidate so we can vote on it.
What do folks think about releasing 1.7.8 vs. 1.8.0? There are very
few changes in the 1.7 branch, so it might be best to release 1.8.0
from trunk. There have been enough
Hi,
I would say go for the 1.8.0
Note that there are a few issues that seem appropriate to include for
this one because they relate to a change in 'backwards compatibility:
- AVRO-1586 Build against Hadoop 2
( which should also fix AVRO-1453 Release version of avro-tools
compiled against
I would like to have https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AVRO-1667
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AVRO-1667 resolved in 1.8.0 if possible.
This issue prevents serializing/deserializing objects with certain schemas…
—Z
On Jul 1, 2015, at 10:50 AM, Niels Basjes ni...@basjes.nl wrote:
On Wed, Jul 1, 2015 at 7:13 PM, Sean Busbey bus...@cloudera.com wrote:
+1 for a 1.8.0 release. What kind of timeline for the first RC are you
looking at?
In the next week or so. Hopefully we can decide anything else we'd
like to include and get it reviewed and committed in that time.
On Wed,
19 matches
Mail list logo
