Thanks everyone for voting. The Vote passes with 11 +1¹s (5 binding, 6
non-binding) and no -1¹s.
I¹ll push the release out.
Tom
On 6/19/14, 10:14 AM, Thomas Graves tgra...@yahoo-inc.com.INVALID
wrote:
Hey Everyone,
There have been various bug fixes that have went into
branch-0.23 since the
See https://builds.apache.org/job/Hadoop-Hdfs-trunk/1787/changes
Changes:
[arp] HADOOP-10565. Support IP ranges (CIDR) in proxyuser.hosts. (Contributed
by Benoy Antony)
[raviprak] YARN 2163. WebUI: Order of AppId in apps table should be consistent
with ApplicationId.compareTo()
[cnauroth]
See https://builds.apache.org/job/Hadoop-Hdfs-trunk/1787/
###
## LAST 60 LINES OF THE CONSOLE
###
[...truncated 16017 lines...]
main:
[mkdir] Created dir:
Giuseppe Reina created HDFS-6604:
Summary: Disk space leak with shortcircuit
Key: HDFS-6604
URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HDFS-6604
Project: Hadoop HDFS
Issue Type: Bug
I was trying to do a JIRA bulk update to target all non-blockers to 2.6,
but doesn't look like the bulk-update tool doesn't have Target Version.
Does anyone know if that is true or if it is me not having permissions?
On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 12:08 AM, Karthik Kambatla ka...@cloudera.com
wrote:
Hi all, responding to multiple messages here,
Arun, thanks for the clarification regarding MR classpaths. It sounds like
the story there is improved and still improving.
However, I think we still suffer from this at least on the HDFS side. We
have a single JAR for all of HDFS, and our clients
As someone else already mentioned, we should announce one future release
(may be, 2.5) as the last JDK6-based release before making the move to JDK7.
I am comfortable calling 2.5 the last JDK6 release.
On Fri, Jun 27, 2014 at 11:26 AM, Andrew Wang andrew.w...@cloudera.com
wrote:
Hi all,
FYI I also just updated the wiki page with a Proposal D, aka Tucu plan,
which I think is essentially Proposal C but tabling JDK8 plans for now.
https://wiki.apache.org/hadoop/MovingToJdk7and8
Karthik, thanks for ringing in re: 2.5. I guess there's nothing urgently
required, the Jenkins stuff
Like I mentioned before, I'd like to get RM-webservices : YARN-1695
included. May be we can wait for the branch till that point of time.
I am also pushing for Shared Cache: YARN-1492 reviews. Again, like I said
before, we can take it as we go.
+Vinod
Hortonworks Inc.
http://hortonworks.com/
On
Including YARN-1695 makes sense, just made it a blocker to ensure we get it
in. YARN-1492 - would be great if we get it in, but I am not sure how
feasible it is. Given it is being developed on a branch, there is also the
merge to trunk and branch-2 overhead.
I would prefer branching soon so we
Hi David and Kai,
There are a couple of challenges with this, but I just figured out a pretty
decent setup while working on HDFS-2856. That code isn't committed yet,
but if you open patch version 5 attached to that issue and look for the
TestSaslDataTransfer class, then you'll see how it works.
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HDFS-6391?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Andrew Wang resolved HDFS-6391.
---
Resolution: Fixed
Fix Version/s: fs-encryption (HADOOP-10150 and HDFS-6134)
Committed to
Andrew Wang created HDFS-6605:
-
Summary: Client server negotiation of cipher suite
Key: HDFS-6605
URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HDFS-6605
Project: Hadoop HDFS
Issue Type: Sub-task
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HDFS-6389?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Charles Lamb resolved HDFS-6389.
Resolution: Fixed
Fix Version/s: fs-encryption (HADOOP-10150 and HDFS-6134)
[~cmccabe],
Thanks everyone for the discussion. Looks like we have come to a pragmatic and
progressive conclusion.
In terms of execution of the consensus plan, I think a little bit of caution is
in order.
Let's give downstream projects more of a runway.
I propose we inform HBase, Pig, Hive etc. that we
Aaron,
Since the amend was just to the test, I'll keep this RC as-is.
I'll also comment on jira.
thanks,
Arun
On Jun 27, 2014, at 2:40 PM, Aaron T. Myers a...@cloudera.com wrote:
I'm -0 on rc1.
Note the latest discussion on HDFS-6527 which first resulted in that patch
being reverted
+1 to making 2.6 the last JDK6 release.
If we want, 2.7 could be a parallel release or one soon after 2.6. We could
upgrade other dependencies that require JDK7 as well.
On Fri, Jun 27, 2014 at 3:01 PM, Arun C. Murthy a...@hortonworks.com wrote:
Thanks everyone for the discussion. Looks like
That's fine by me. Like I said, assuming that rc1 does indeed include the fix
in HDFS-6527, and not the revert, then rc1 should be functionally correct.
What's in branch-2.4.1 doesn't currently match what's in this RC, but if that
doesn't bother anyone else then I won't lose any sleep over it.
What's in branch-2.4.1 doesn't currently match what's in this RC,
but there is a tag that matches, right? Else we need to fix that.
On Fri, Jun 27, 2014 at 3:26 PM, Aaron T. Myers a...@cloudera.com wrote:
That's fine by me. Like I said, assuming that rc1 does indeed include the
fix in
+1
- Verified signatures and digests
- Built from source, installed on single-node cluster and ran some
sample jobs
Jason
On 06/21/2014 01:51 AM, Arun C Murthy wrote:
Folks,
I've created another release candidate (rc1) for hadoop-2.4.1 based on the
feedback that I would like to push out.
Spoke to Vinod offline. The tentative plan is cut branch-2.5 middle of next
week and work towards getting the remaining blockers in as soon as
possible.
On Fri, Jun 27, 2014 at 12:56 PM, Karthik Kambatla ka...@cloudera.com
wrote:
Including YARN-1695 makes sense, just made it a blocker to
Hi Karthik,
Regarding YARN-1492 (shared cache), it should not hold up 2.5 if it is not
there. If it's not there, it's not there.
Also, FYI, since it turns out the changes are not too large and should not
have a lot of conflicts, we're thinking of not using a separate branch.
Regards,
Sangjin
22 matches
Mail list logo
