Re: Oozie 5.0.0-beta1

[Robert Kanter]

Thanks for looking into that and filing some new JIRAs.
If we have some known flakey tests, then I think it's fine to leave those
for the beta.  But we should try to fix them for the GA (plus, that'll make
development easier too).

On Wed, Dec 27, 2017 at 10:01 AM, Attila Sasvari 
wrote:

> Thanks Robert for the ideas. Some explanation: we rerun all the tests
> within a test class in case there is a failing test case because surefire
> does not allow running individual test cases from multiple test classes
> (see bin/test-patch-20-tests). In other words: passing
> -Dtest=Test1#testMethod1,Test2#testMethod2 to mvn test does not work,
> while
> -DTest1,Test2 works at the cost of running all other tests in Test1 an
> Test2.
>
> Clean up before and after tests is a good idea. In fact, I have seen
> multiple undeleted test resources (after mvn clean too):
> core/activemq-data/
> core/dist2.txt
> core/dist3.txt
> core/distcp-log4j.properties
> core/distcp-oozie-1514391729048.log
> core/dst1.txt
> core/test-invalid-workflow-app.xml
> core/test-workflow-app.xml
>
> I filed some new JIRA-s:
> - OOZIE-3145 TestDistcpMain shall remove created files after test execution
> - OOZIE-3148 Rerun Failing Tests through Maven surefire
> ( Right now I am running again mkdistro.sh with
> -Dsurefire.rerunFailingTestsCount=2. I will look into mini cluster logs if
> there are failures.)
>
> Unfortunately, there are some known flaky tests in Oozie (tracked by
> OOZIE-3111 umbrella JIRA). I am not sure if we need to fix all of them
> before the first 5.0.0-beta1 release candidate; just out of curiosity, I
> tried to run bin/mkdistro.sh on release-4.3.0 and some tests failed too.
>
> - Attila
>
> On Fri, Dec 22, 2017 at 1:20 AM, Robert Kanter 
> wrote:
>
> > I took a look at the latest PreCommit job
> > 
> and
> > it reported 55 rerun tests.
> > Tests rerun: 55
> > Tests failed at first run:
> > org.apache.oozie.action.hadoop.TestJavaActionExecutor,
> >
> > However, looking through the actual output, I only see 1 test that failed
> > (and was rerun): TestJavaActionExecutor. testCredentialsSkip.
> >
> > [INFO] Running org.apache.oozie.action.hadoop.TestJavaActionExecutor
> > [ERROR] Tests run: 55, Failures: 0, Errors: 1, Skipped: 0, Time
> > elapsed: 126.213 s <<< FAILURE! - in
> > org.apache.oozie.action.hadoop.TestJavaActionExecutor
> > [ERROR] testCredentialsSkip(org.apache.oozie.action.hadoop.
> > TestJavaActionExecutor)
> >  Time elapsed: 0.532 s  <<< ERROR!
> > org.apache.oozie.action.ActionExecutorException: JA020: Could not load
> > credentials of type [abc] with name [abcname]]; perhaps it was not
> > defined in oozie-site.xml?
> > at org.apache.oozie.action.hadoop.TestJavaActionExecutor.
> > _testCredentialsSkip(TestJavaActionExecutor.java:1106)
> > at org.apache.oozie.action.hadoop.TestJavaActionExecutor.
> > testCredentialsSkip(TestJavaActionExecutor.java:1006)
> >
> >
> > In fact, the report only lists the one test class, not 55 of them.  So I
> > think there's something wrong with our reporting here.
> >
> > Anyway, typically, when we see test that succeed on their own but fail
> when
> > run all together, that means that (likely some other) test is not
> cleaning
> > up properly.  This is unfortunately tricky to debug because it's hard to
> > figure out what the other test is.  A long time ago, a big example of
> this
> > problem was not properly shutting down the Services singleton, so we'd
> have
> > duplicates and other issues.
> >
> > For these specific issues, some hints:
> > # RUNNINGWITHERROR: This problem means that a yarn job in the mini
> cluster
> > has failed.  To find out why, you should be able to dig out the app id
> from
> > the test output, and then find it's yarn logs somewhere (there's a
> > minicluster logs dir, but I forget where).  That'll hopefully make it
> > obvious what's going on.
> > # Credentials: There's probably an oozie-site or Configuration class
> > leaking from somewhere or not properly cleaned up by a previous test or
> > setup by this test.  The Credentials class is missing.
> > # TestJMSAccessorService: Sounds like something didn't get cleaned up.
> >
> > One way that might be easier to fix this is to have the setUp methods
> > ensure that things are clean just in case.  We actually have a number of
> > tests that do things like this too.
> >
> >
> > - Robert
> >
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Dec 21, 2017 at 12:40 PM, Attila Sasvari 
> > wrote:
> >
> > >  Update:
> > > - bin/mkdistro.sh fails because there are test failures.
> > > [ERROR] Failures:
> > >
> > >
> > > [ERROR]
> > > TestCoordActionsKillXCommand.testActionKillCommandActionNumbers:96
> > > expected: but was:
> > >
> > >
> > > [ERROR] Errors:
> > >
> > >
> > > [ERROR]
> > > 

Re: Oozie 5.0.0-beta1

[Attila Sasvari]

Thanks Robert for the ideas. Some explanation: we rerun all the tests
within a test class in case there is a failing test case because surefire
does not allow running individual test cases from multiple test classes
(see bin/test-patch-20-tests). In other words: passing
-Dtest=Test1#testMethod1,Test2#testMethod2 to mvn test does not work, while
-DTest1,Test2 works at the cost of running all other tests in Test1 an
Test2.

Clean up before and after tests is a good idea. In fact, I have seen
multiple undeleted test resources (after mvn clean too):
core/activemq-data/
core/dist2.txt
core/dist3.txt
core/distcp-log4j.properties
core/distcp-oozie-1514391729048.log
core/dst1.txt
core/test-invalid-workflow-app.xml
core/test-workflow-app.xml

I filed some new JIRA-s:
- OOZIE-3145 TestDistcpMain shall remove created files after test execution
- OOZIE-3148 Rerun Failing Tests through Maven surefire
( Right now I am running again mkdistro.sh with
-Dsurefire.rerunFailingTestsCount=2. I will look into mini cluster logs if
there are failures.)

Unfortunately, there are some known flaky tests in Oozie (tracked by
OOZIE-3111 umbrella JIRA). I am not sure if we need to fix all of them
before the first 5.0.0-beta1 release candidate; just out of curiosity, I
tried to run bin/mkdistro.sh on release-4.3.0 and some tests failed too.

- Attila

On Fri, Dec 22, 2017 at 1:20 AM, Robert Kanter  wrote:

> I took a look at the latest PreCommit job
>  and
> it reported 55 rerun tests.
> Tests rerun: 55
> Tests failed at first run:
> org.apache.oozie.action.hadoop.TestJavaActionExecutor,
>
> However, looking through the actual output, I only see 1 test that failed
> (and was rerun): TestJavaActionExecutor. testCredentialsSkip.
>
> [INFO] Running org.apache.oozie.action.hadoop.TestJavaActionExecutor
> [ERROR] Tests run: 55, Failures: 0, Errors: 1, Skipped: 0, Time
> elapsed: 126.213 s <<< FAILURE! - in
> org.apache.oozie.action.hadoop.TestJavaActionExecutor
> [ERROR] testCredentialsSkip(org.apache.oozie.action.hadoop.
> TestJavaActionExecutor)
>  Time elapsed: 0.532 s  <<< ERROR!
> org.apache.oozie.action.ActionExecutorException: JA020: Could not load
> credentials of type [abc] with name [abcname]]; perhaps it was not
> defined in oozie-site.xml?
> at org.apache.oozie.action.hadoop.TestJavaActionExecutor.
> _testCredentialsSkip(TestJavaActionExecutor.java:1106)
> at org.apache.oozie.action.hadoop.TestJavaActionExecutor.
> testCredentialsSkip(TestJavaActionExecutor.java:1006)
>
>
> In fact, the report only lists the one test class, not 55 of them.  So I
> think there's something wrong with our reporting here.
>
> Anyway, typically, when we see test that succeed on their own but fail when
> run all together, that means that (likely some other) test is not cleaning
> up properly.  This is unfortunately tricky to debug because it's hard to
> figure out what the other test is.  A long time ago, a big example of this
> problem was not properly shutting down the Services singleton, so we'd have
> duplicates and other issues.
>
> For these specific issues, some hints:
> # RUNNINGWITHERROR: This problem means that a yarn job in the mini cluster
> has failed.  To find out why, you should be able to dig out the app id from
> the test output, and then find it's yarn logs somewhere (there's a
> minicluster logs dir, but I forget where).  That'll hopefully make it
> obvious what's going on.
> # Credentials: There's probably an oozie-site or Configuration class
> leaking from somewhere or not properly cleaned up by a previous test or
> setup by this test.  The Credentials class is missing.
> # TestJMSAccessorService: Sounds like something didn't get cleaned up.
>
> One way that might be easier to fix this is to have the setUp methods
> ensure that things are clean just in case.  We actually have a number of
> tests that do things like this too.
>
>
> - Robert
>
>
>
> On Thu, Dec 21, 2017 at 12:40 PM, Attila Sasvari 
> wrote:
>
> >  Update:
> > - bin/mkdistro.sh fails because there are test failures.
> > [ERROR] Failures:
> >
> >
> > [ERROR]
> > TestCoordActionsKillXCommand.testActionKillCommandActionNumbers:96
> > expected: but was:
> >
> >
> > [ERROR] Errors:
> >
> >
> > [ERROR]
> > TestJavaActionExecutor.testCredentialsSkip:1006->_
> testCredentialsSkip:1106
> > ? ActionExecutor
> >
> > [ERROR]   TestJMSAccessorService.testConnectionRetryExceptionLi
> stener:211
> > ?
> > InstanceAlreadyExists
> >
> >
> > - if I run the tests separately, they pass. Looking at the latest
> precommit
> > builds (https://builds.apache.org/job/PreCommit-OOZIE-Build), it turns
> out
> > that a lot of tests had to be re-executed to get a +1 for the TESTS part.
> > Problem is that the Oozie tests have impact on each other, and it looks
> > like the execution order matters 

Re: Oozie 5.0.0-beta1

[Robert Kanter]

I took a look at the latest PreCommit job
 and
it reported 55 rerun tests.
Tests rerun: 55
Tests failed at first run:
org.apache.oozie.action.hadoop.TestJavaActionExecutor,

However, looking through the actual output, I only see 1 test that failed
(and was rerun): TestJavaActionExecutor. testCredentialsSkip.

[INFO] Running org.apache.oozie.action.hadoop.TestJavaActionExecutor
[ERROR] Tests run: 55, Failures: 0, Errors: 1, Skipped: 0, Time
elapsed: 126.213 s <<< FAILURE! - in
org.apache.oozie.action.hadoop.TestJavaActionExecutor
[ERROR] 
testCredentialsSkip(org.apache.oozie.action.hadoop.TestJavaActionExecutor)
 Time elapsed: 0.532 s  <<< ERROR!
org.apache.oozie.action.ActionExecutorException: JA020: Could not load
credentials of type [abc] with name [abcname]]; perhaps it was not
defined in oozie-site.xml?
at 
org.apache.oozie.action.hadoop.TestJavaActionExecutor._testCredentialsSkip(TestJavaActionExecutor.java:1106)
at 
org.apache.oozie.action.hadoop.TestJavaActionExecutor.testCredentialsSkip(TestJavaActionExecutor.java:1006)


In fact, the report only lists the one test class, not 55 of them.  So I
think there's something wrong with our reporting here.

Anyway, typically, when we see test that succeed on their own but fail when
run all together, that means that (likely some other) test is not cleaning
up properly.  This is unfortunately tricky to debug because it's hard to
figure out what the other test is.  A long time ago, a big example of this
problem was not properly shutting down the Services singleton, so we'd have
duplicates and other issues.

For these specific issues, some hints:
# RUNNINGWITHERROR: This problem means that a yarn job in the mini cluster
has failed.  To find out why, you should be able to dig out the app id from
the test output, and then find it's yarn logs somewhere (there's a
minicluster logs dir, but I forget where).  That'll hopefully make it
obvious what's going on.
# Credentials: There's probably an oozie-site or Configuration class
leaking from somewhere or not properly cleaned up by a previous test or
setup by this test.  The Credentials class is missing.
# TestJMSAccessorService: Sounds like something didn't get cleaned up.

One way that might be easier to fix this is to have the setUp methods
ensure that things are clean just in case.  We actually have a number of
tests that do things like this too.


- Robert



On Thu, Dec 21, 2017 at 12:40 PM, Attila Sasvari 
wrote:

>  Update:
> - bin/mkdistro.sh fails because there are test failures.
> [ERROR] Failures:
>
>
> [ERROR]
> TestCoordActionsKillXCommand.testActionKillCommandActionNumbers:96
> expected: but was:
>
>
> [ERROR] Errors:
>
>
> [ERROR]
> TestJavaActionExecutor.testCredentialsSkip:1006->_testCredentialsSkip:1106
> ? ActionExecutor
>
> [ERROR]   TestJMSAccessorService.testConnectionRetryExceptionListener:211
> ?
> InstanceAlreadyExists
>
>
> - if I run the tests separately, they pass. Looking at the latest precommit
> builds (https://builds.apache.org/job/PreCommit-OOZIE-Build), it turns out
> that a lot of tests had to be re-executed to get a +1 for the TESTS part.
> Problem is that the Oozie tests have impact on each other, and it looks
> like the execution order matters too.
> - uploaded work in progress (SNAPSHOT)  artifacts here:
> http://people.apache.org/~asasvari/oozie-5.0.0-beta1-SNAPSHOT/
> - I plan to update the "How To Release" page as it contains some errors
> (e.g sftp shall be used to upload artifacts)
> - agreed with Artem that OOZIE-2231 will slip to 5.0.0
>
> Regards,
> - Attila
>
> On Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 11:47 PM, Attila Sasvari 
> wrote:
>
> > Hi everyone,
> >
> > branch-5.0.0-beta1 has been created.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Attila
> >
> > On Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 7:25 PM, Attila Sasvari 
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Thanks gp. I will follow the steps described on
> >> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOZIE/How+To+Release during
> >> the process.
> >>
> >> Next steps:
> >> - A new branch is about to be created from master.
> >>
> >> Artem, many thanks. I will review and commit that patch if everything is
> >> okay. I don't see any problem with including it in 5.0.0-beta1.
> >>
> >> On Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 4:32 PM, Artem Ervits 
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> just uploaded patch for OOZIE-2231.
> >>>
> >>> On Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 10:04 AM, Peter Cseh 
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> > Hey Attila,
> >>> >
> >>> > I won't be able to work on the release for a couple weeks now.
> >>> > Thanks for getting the release rolling!
> >>> >
> >>> > Cheers,
> >>> > gp
> >>> >
> >>> >
> >>> > On Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 4:00 PM, Attila Sasvari <
> asasv...@cloudera.com
> >>> >
> >>> > wrote:
> >>> >
> >>> > > Hi everyone,
> >>> > >
> >>> > > I would like to create the release branch, branch-5.0.0-beta1
> >>> (following
> 

Re: Oozie 5.0.0-beta1

[Attila Sasvari]

Hi everyone,

branch-5.0.0-beta1 has been created.

Regards,
Attila

On Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 7:25 PM, Attila Sasvari 
wrote:

> Thanks gp. I will follow the steps described on
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOZIE/How+To+Release during
> the process.
>
> Next steps:
> - A new branch is about to be created from master.
>
> Artem, many thanks. I will review and commit that patch if everything is
> okay. I don't see any problem with including it in 5.0.0-beta1.
>
> On Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 4:32 PM, Artem Ervits 
> wrote:
>
>> just uploaded patch for OOZIE-2231.
>>
>> On Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 10:04 AM, Peter Cseh 
>> wrote:
>>
>> > Hey Attila,
>> >
>> > I won't be able to work on the release for a couple weeks now.
>> > Thanks for getting the release rolling!
>> >
>> > Cheers,
>> > gp
>> >
>> >
>> > On Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 4:00 PM, Attila Sasvari 
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> > > Hi everyone,
>> > >
>> > > I would like to create the release branch, branch-5.0.0-beta1
>> (following
>> > > Hadoop release versioning), earlier.
>> > >
>> > > Looking at https://issues.apache.org/jira/projects/OOZIE/versions/
>> > 12342048
>> > > there are 3 issues in progress (OOZIE-2231, OOZIE-2942, OOZIE-2974)
>> and 3
>> > > issues to do (OOZIE-2600, OOZIE-3093, OOZIE-1987). I will push those
>> out
>> > to
>> > > 5.0.0 if there are no objections.
>> > >
>> > > At the same time, I am volunteering to be the release manager if Peter
>> > Cseh
>> > > does not mind.
>> > >
>> > > Regards,
>> > > Attila
>> > >
>> > > On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 8:28 PM, Robert Kanter 
>> > > wrote:
>> > >
>> > > > Sounds good to me!
>> > > >
>> > > > On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 5:17 AM, Andras Piros <
>> > andras.pi...@cloudera.com>
>> > > > wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > > Good idea Gezapeti!
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Time to wrap things up towards a stable 5.0.0 - a release
>> candidate
>> > on
>> > > > > 5.0.0b1 is a good first step.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Since other components that Oozie uses like Pig and Hive do not
>> > (fully)
>> > > > > support Hadoop 3, we have to wait with OOZIE-2973
>> > > > > .
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Thanks,
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Andras
>> > > > >
>> > > > > On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 1:50 PM, Peter Cseh > >
>> > > > wrote:
>> > > > >
>> > > > > > Hi everyone!
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > Now that OOZIE-2969 > > > jira/browse/OOZIE-2969>
>> > > > > is
>> > > > > > committed I'd like to start the process of creating the branch
>> for
>> > > > > 5.0.0b1
>> > > > > > and building a release from there.
>> > > > > > It's unfortunate that we won't be able to support Hadoop 3 in
>> the
>> > > beta
>> > > > > for
>> > > > > > reasons described in OOZIE-2973
>> > > > > > 
>> > > > > > I don't see any more blockers for the beta1 and I hope we won't
>> > find
>> > > > > > hard-to-fix major issues so we can release Oozie 5.0.0 in early
>> > 2018.
>> > > > > > Please let me know if you have any suggestions.
>> > > > > > Thanks
>> > > > > > gp
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > --
>> > > > > > Peter Cseh
>> > > > > > Software Engineer
>> > > > > > 
>> > > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > --
>> > > --
>> > > Attila Sasvari
>> > > Software Engineer
>> > > 
>> > >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > Peter Cseh
>> > Software Engineer
>> > 
>> >
>>
>
>
>
> --
> --
> Attila Sasvari
> Software Engineer
> 
>



-- 
-- 
Attila Sasvari
Software Engineer

Re: Oozie 5.0.0-beta1

[Attila Sasvari]

Thanks gp. I will follow the steps described on
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOZIE/How+To+Release during the
process.

Next steps:
- A new branch is about to be created from master.

Artem, many thanks. I will review and commit that patch if everything is
okay. I don't see any problem with including it in 5.0.0-beta1.

On Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 4:32 PM, Artem Ervits  wrote:

> just uploaded patch for OOZIE-2231.
>
> On Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 10:04 AM, Peter Cseh 
> wrote:
>
> > Hey Attila,
> >
> > I won't be able to work on the release for a couple weeks now.
> > Thanks for getting the release rolling!
> >
> > Cheers,
> > gp
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 4:00 PM, Attila Sasvari 
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Hi everyone,
> > >
> > > I would like to create the release branch, branch-5.0.0-beta1
> (following
> > > Hadoop release versioning), earlier.
> > >
> > > Looking at https://issues.apache.org/jira/projects/OOZIE/versions/
> > 12342048
> > > there are 3 issues in progress (OOZIE-2231, OOZIE-2942, OOZIE-2974)
> and 3
> > > issues to do (OOZIE-2600, OOZIE-3093, OOZIE-1987). I will push those
> out
> > to
> > > 5.0.0 if there are no objections.
> > >
> > > At the same time, I am volunteering to be the release manager if Peter
> > Cseh
> > > does not mind.
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > > Attila
> > >
> > > On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 8:28 PM, Robert Kanter 
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Sounds good to me!
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 5:17 AM, Andras Piros <
> > andras.pi...@cloudera.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Good idea Gezapeti!
> > > > >
> > > > > Time to wrap things up towards a stable 5.0.0 - a release candidate
> > on
> > > > > 5.0.0b1 is a good first step.
> > > > >
> > > > > Since other components that Oozie uses like Pig and Hive do not
> > (fully)
> > > > > support Hadoop 3, we have to wait with OOZIE-2973
> > > > > .
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks,
> > > > >
> > > > > Andras
> > > > >
> > > > > On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 1:50 PM, Peter Cseh 
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Hi everyone!
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Now that OOZIE-2969  > > jira/browse/OOZIE-2969>
> > > > > is
> > > > > > committed I'd like to start the process of creating the branch
> for
> > > > > 5.0.0b1
> > > > > > and building a release from there.
> > > > > > It's unfortunate that we won't be able to support Hadoop 3 in the
> > > beta
> > > > > for
> > > > > > reasons described in OOZIE-2973
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > I don't see any more blockers for the beta1 and I hope we won't
> > find
> > > > > > hard-to-fix major issues so we can release Oozie 5.0.0 in early
> > 2018.
> > > > > > Please let me know if you have any suggestions.
> > > > > > Thanks
> > > > > > gp
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > Peter Cseh
> > > > > > Software Engineer
> > > > > > 
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > --
> > > Attila Sasvari
> > > Software Engineer
> > > 
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Peter Cseh
> > Software Engineer
> > 
> >
>



-- 
-- 
Attila Sasvari
Software Engineer

Re: Oozie 5.0.0-beta1

[Artem Ervits]

just uploaded patch for OOZIE-2231.

On Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 10:04 AM, Peter Cseh  wrote:

> Hey Attila,
>
> I won't be able to work on the release for a couple weeks now.
> Thanks for getting the release rolling!
>
> Cheers,
> gp
>
>
> On Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 4:00 PM, Attila Sasvari 
> wrote:
>
> > Hi everyone,
> >
> > I would like to create the release branch, branch-5.0.0-beta1 (following
> > Hadoop release versioning), earlier.
> >
> > Looking at https://issues.apache.org/jira/projects/OOZIE/versions/
> 12342048
> > there are 3 issues in progress (OOZIE-2231, OOZIE-2942, OOZIE-2974) and 3
> > issues to do (OOZIE-2600, OOZIE-3093, OOZIE-1987). I will push those out
> to
> > 5.0.0 if there are no objections.
> >
> > At the same time, I am volunteering to be the release manager if Peter
> Cseh
> > does not mind.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Attila
> >
> > On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 8:28 PM, Robert Kanter 
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Sounds good to me!
> > >
> > > On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 5:17 AM, Andras Piros <
> andras.pi...@cloudera.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Good idea Gezapeti!
> > > >
> > > > Time to wrap things up towards a stable 5.0.0 - a release candidate
> on
> > > > 5.0.0b1 is a good first step.
> > > >
> > > > Since other components that Oozie uses like Pig and Hive do not
> (fully)
> > > > support Hadoop 3, we have to wait with OOZIE-2973
> > > > .
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > >
> > > > Andras
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 1:50 PM, Peter Cseh 
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Hi everyone!
> > > > >
> > > > > Now that OOZIE-2969  > jira/browse/OOZIE-2969>
> > > > is
> > > > > committed I'd like to start the process of creating the branch for
> > > > 5.0.0b1
> > > > > and building a release from there.
> > > > > It's unfortunate that we won't be able to support Hadoop 3 in the
> > beta
> > > > for
> > > > > reasons described in OOZIE-2973
> > > > > 
> > > > > I don't see any more blockers for the beta1 and I hope we won't
> find
> > > > > hard-to-fix major issues so we can release Oozie 5.0.0 in early
> 2018.
> > > > > Please let me know if you have any suggestions.
> > > > > Thanks
> > > > > gp
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Peter Cseh
> > > > > Software Engineer
> > > > > 
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > --
> > Attila Sasvari
> > Software Engineer
> > 
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Peter Cseh
> Software Engineer
> 
>

Re: Oozie 5.0.0-beta1

[Peter Cseh]

Hey Attila,

I won't be able to work on the release for a couple weeks now.
Thanks for getting the release rolling!

Cheers,
gp


On Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 4:00 PM, Attila Sasvari 
wrote:

> Hi everyone,
>
> I would like to create the release branch, branch-5.0.0-beta1 (following
> Hadoop release versioning), earlier.
>
> Looking at https://issues.apache.org/jira/projects/OOZIE/versions/12342048
> there are 3 issues in progress (OOZIE-2231, OOZIE-2942, OOZIE-2974) and 3
> issues to do (OOZIE-2600, OOZIE-3093, OOZIE-1987). I will push those out to
> 5.0.0 if there are no objections.
>
> At the same time, I am volunteering to be the release manager if Peter Cseh
> does not mind.
>
> Regards,
> Attila
>
> On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 8:28 PM, Robert Kanter 
> wrote:
>
> > Sounds good to me!
> >
> > On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 5:17 AM, Andras Piros 
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Good idea Gezapeti!
> > >
> > > Time to wrap things up towards a stable 5.0.0 - a release candidate on
> > > 5.0.0b1 is a good first step.
> > >
> > > Since other components that Oozie uses like Pig and Hive do not (fully)
> > > support Hadoop 3, we have to wait with OOZIE-2973
> > > .
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > >
> > > Andras
> > >
> > > On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 1:50 PM, Peter Cseh 
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi everyone!
> > > >
> > > > Now that OOZIE-2969  jira/browse/OOZIE-2969>
> > > is
> > > > committed I'd like to start the process of creating the branch for
> > > 5.0.0b1
> > > > and building a release from there.
> > > > It's unfortunate that we won't be able to support Hadoop 3 in the
> beta
> > > for
> > > > reasons described in OOZIE-2973
> > > > 
> > > > I don't see any more blockers for the beta1 and I hope we won't find
> > > > hard-to-fix major issues so we can release Oozie 5.0.0 in early 2018.
> > > > Please let me know if you have any suggestions.
> > > > Thanks
> > > > gp
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Peter Cseh
> > > > Software Engineer
> > > > 
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> --
> Attila Sasvari
> Software Engineer
> 
>



-- 
Peter Cseh
Software Engineer

Re: Oozie 5.0.0-beta1

[Attila Sasvari]

Hi everyone,

I would like to create the release branch, branch-5.0.0-beta1 (following
Hadoop release versioning), earlier.

Looking at https://issues.apache.org/jira/projects/OOZIE/versions/12342048
there are 3 issues in progress (OOZIE-2231, OOZIE-2942, OOZIE-2974) and 3
issues to do (OOZIE-2600, OOZIE-3093, OOZIE-1987). I will push those out to
5.0.0 if there are no objections.

At the same time, I am volunteering to be the release manager if Peter Cseh
does not mind.

Regards,
Attila

On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 8:28 PM, Robert Kanter  wrote:

> Sounds good to me!
>
> On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 5:17 AM, Andras Piros 
> wrote:
>
> > Good idea Gezapeti!
> >
> > Time to wrap things up towards a stable 5.0.0 - a release candidate on
> > 5.0.0b1 is a good first step.
> >
> > Since other components that Oozie uses like Pig and Hive do not (fully)
> > support Hadoop 3, we have to wait with OOZIE-2973
> > .
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Andras
> >
> > On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 1:50 PM, Peter Cseh 
> wrote:
> >
> > > Hi everyone!
> > >
> > > Now that OOZIE-2969 
> > is
> > > committed I'd like to start the process of creating the branch for
> > 5.0.0b1
> > > and building a release from there.
> > > It's unfortunate that we won't be able to support Hadoop 3 in the beta
> > for
> > > reasons described in OOZIE-2973
> > > 
> > > I don't see any more blockers for the beta1 and I hope we won't find
> > > hard-to-fix major issues so we can release Oozie 5.0.0 in early 2018.
> > > Please let me know if you have any suggestions.
> > > Thanks
> > > gp
> > >
> > > --
> > > Peter Cseh
> > > Software Engineer
> > > 
> > >
> >
>



-- 
-- 
Attila Sasvari
Software Engineer

Re: Oozie 5.0.0-beta1

[Robert Kanter]

Sounds good to me!

On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 5:17 AM, Andras Piros 
wrote:

> Good idea Gezapeti!
>
> Time to wrap things up towards a stable 5.0.0 - a release candidate on
> 5.0.0b1 is a good first step.
>
> Since other components that Oozie uses like Pig and Hive do not (fully)
> support Hadoop 3, we have to wait with OOZIE-2973
> .
>
> Thanks,
>
> Andras
>
> On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 1:50 PM, Peter Cseh  wrote:
>
> > Hi everyone!
> >
> > Now that OOZIE-2969 
> is
> > committed I'd like to start the process of creating the branch for
> 5.0.0b1
> > and building a release from there.
> > It's unfortunate that we won't be able to support Hadoop 3 in the beta
> for
> > reasons described in OOZIE-2973
> > 
> > I don't see any more blockers for the beta1 and I hope we won't find
> > hard-to-fix major issues so we can release Oozie 5.0.0 in early 2018.
> > Please let me know if you have any suggestions.
> > Thanks
> > gp
> >
> > --
> > Peter Cseh
> > Software Engineer
> > 
> >
>

Re: Oozie 5.0.0-beta1

[Andras Piros]

Good idea Gezapeti!

Time to wrap things up towards a stable 5.0.0 - a release candidate on
5.0.0b1 is a good first step.

Since other components that Oozie uses like Pig and Hive do not (fully)
support Hadoop 3, we have to wait with OOZIE-2973
.

Thanks,

Andras

On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 1:50 PM, Peter Cseh  wrote:

> Hi everyone!
>
> Now that OOZIE-2969  is
> committed I'd like to start the process of creating the branch for 5.0.0b1
> and building a release from there.
> It's unfortunate that we won't be able to support Hadoop 3 in the beta for
> reasons described in OOZIE-2973
> 
> I don't see any more blockers for the beta1 and I hope we won't find
> hard-to-fix major issues so we can release Oozie 5.0.0 in early 2018.
> Please let me know if you have any suggestions.
> Thanks
> gp
>
> --
> Peter Cseh
> Software Engineer
> 
>