Glad to see consensus on this proposal.
This new subproject will hopefully continue Hadoop's evolution forward (dare I
say the biggest one since YARN) and also intends to accomplish this with
minimal project overhead.
+1 binding.
Thanks
+Vinod
> On Mar 20, 2018, at 11:20 AM, Owen O'Malley
+1 for the sub-project idea. Thanks to everyone that contributed!
Regards,
Rakesh
On Tue, Mar 27, 2018 at 4:46 PM, Jack Liu wrote:
> +1 (non-binding)
>
>
> On Tue, Mar 27, 2018 at 2:16 AM, Tsuyoshi Ozawa wrote:
>
> > +1(binding),
> >
> > - Tsuyoshi
> >
> >
+1 (non-binding)
On Tue, Mar 27, 2018 at 2:16 AM, Tsuyoshi Ozawa wrote:
> +1(binding),
>
> - Tsuyoshi
>
> On Tue, Mar 20, 2018 at 14:21 Owen O'Malley
> wrote:
>
> > All,
> >
> > Following our discussions on the previous thread (Merging branch
>
+1
Best,
On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 10:38 AM, Xiao Chen wrote:
> +1
>
> Thanks,
> -Xiao
>
> On Sun, Mar 25, 2018 at 9:07 PM, Akira Ajisaka
> wrote:
>
>> +1
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Akira
>>
>>
>> On 2018/03/24 15:18, Lokesh Jain wrote:
>>
>>> +1
+1
Thanks,
Akira
On 2018/03/24 15:18, Lokesh Jain wrote:
+1 (non-binding)
Thanks
Lokesh
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: hdfs-dev-unsubscr...@hadoop.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: hdfs-dev-h...@hadoop.apache.org
+1 (non-binding)
Thanks
Lokesh
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: hdfs-dev-unsubscr...@hadoop.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: hdfs-dev-h...@hadoop.apache.org
+1 (binding)
Happy to see the community converge on a proposal.
On Fri, Mar 23, 2018 at 11:18 AM, Andrew Wang
wrote:
> +1
>
> If this VOTE is to gather consensus about establishing a new subproject,
> let's definitely proceed with that.
>
> It sounds like we're
+1
If this VOTE is to gather consensus about establishing a new subproject,
let's definitely proceed with that.
It sounds like we're already discussing changes to the details of how the
project will be run, and releasing from the branch vs. maven profile is not
a blocker for me. I raised it
+1 ( binding)
On Tue, Mar 20, 2018 at 11:50 PM, Owen O'Malley
wrote:
> All,
>
> Following our discussions on the previous thread (Merging branch HDFS-7240
> to trunk), I'd like to propose the following:
>
> * HDSL become a subproject of Hadoop.
> * HDSL will release
+1 (binding)
Thanks!
On Tue, Mar 20, 2018 at 11:20 AM, Owen O'Malley
wrote:
> All,
>
> Following our discussions on the previous thread (Merging branch HDFS-7240
> to trunk), I'd like to propose the following:
>
> * HDSL become a subproject of Hadoop.
> * HDSL will
+1 for the subproject of HDSL
Instead of maintaining directly as part of main repo itself, may be we can
explore 'git submodules'
-Vinay
On 23 Mar 2018 11:47 am, "Takanobu Asanuma" wrote:
+1 (non-binding).
Thanks,
-Takanobu Asanuma
> All,
>
> Following our
+1 (non-binding).
Thanks,
-Takanobu Asanuma
> All,
>
> Following our discussions on the previous thread (Merging branch HDFS-7240
> to trunk), I'd like to propose the following:
>
> * HDSL become a subproject of Hadoop.
> * HDSL will release separately from Hadoop. Hadoop releases will not
>
+1 (non-binding)
On 3/23/18, 8:23 AM, "dujunp...@gmail.com on behalf of 俊平堵"
wrote:
I think the proposal here is the right way to get consensus from each part
of community. +1 (binding)
Thanks Owen for driving this.
I think the proposal here is the right way to get consensus from each part
of community. +1 (binding)
Thanks Owen for driving this.
Thanks,
Junping
2018-03-21 2:20 GMT+08:00 Owen O'Malley :
> All,
>
> Following our discussions on the previous thread (Merging branch
+1 (non-binding).
Thanks,
Chen
> On Mar 20, 2018, at 11:20 AM, Owen O'Malley wrote:
>
> All,
>
> Following our discussions on the previous thread (Merging branch HDFS-7240
> to trunk), I'd like to propose the following:
>
> * HDSL become a subproject of Hadoop.
> *
+1 (Binding)
Regards,
Suresh
On Tue, Mar 20, 2018 at 11:20 AM, Owen O'Malley
wrote:
> All,
>
> Following our discussions on the previous thread (Merging branch HDFS-7240
> to trunk), I'd like to propose the following:
>
> * HDSL become a subproject of Hadoop.
> * HDSL
+1 (non-binding).
Thanks,
Hanisha
On 3/22/18, 4:06 PM, "Elek, Marton" wrote:
>
> > We need to do this since the source tarball is our official Apache
>release
> > artifact, the rest are convenience binaries. So the Maven profile is
> > insufficient for this.
>
>It's a very
> We need to do this since the source tarball is our official Apache
release
> artifact, the rest are convenience binaries. So the Maven profile is
> insufficient for this.
It's a very good point, but actually it could be handled with maven
profile and assembly descriptors. I created
Hi Lei/Owen,
Based on Daryn’s suggestion, we have made HDSL a loadable module inside data
node.
It relies on the current loadable module support that is already present in
HDFS.
This module is loaded by Datanodes only when it is configured.
--Anu
On 3/22/18, 11:25 AM, "Owen O'Malley"
On Thu, Mar 22, 2018 at 11:09 AM, Lei Xu wrote:
>
> I have one concrete question about how this HDSL subproject being
> separated: Ozone / HDSL was designed in the current way to re-use the
> existing HDFS code base as much as possible, thus today for this
> container service
Hi, Owen
Thanks a lot for this proposal, as I believe it has addressed most of
the concerns of the community.
I have one concrete question about how this HDSL subproject being
separated: Ozone / HDSL was designed in the current way to re-use the
existing HDFS code base as much as possible, thus
On Thu, Mar 22, 2018 at 10:23 AM, Andrew Wang wrote:
> We want the git hash to match the contents of the tarball and tag, which is
> beyond what create release does right now. It doesn't do any git stuff.
...and it can't? Even if this remains a manual step, it's not a
We want the git hash to match the contents of the tarball and tag, which is
beyond what create release does right now. It doesn't do any git stuff.
Also sorry if I missed this, but have we gone through all of Owen and
Daryn's earlier comments about merge readiness? Some of Daryn's in
particular
+1 (binding)
This compromise seems to address most of the concerns raised during
the discussion. Thanks for proposing and driving this, Owen.
On Thu, Mar 22, 2018 at 9:30 AM, Andrew Wang wrote:
> In Owen's proposal, it says to delete the module from the release branch.
Hi Anu,
Again apologies in advance for phone typing, flight delays means I'm still
writing this from an airport :(
In Owen's proposal, it says to delete the module from the release branch.
We need to do this since the source tarball is our official Apache release
artifact, the rest are
+1 (non binding)
Thanks,
Mukul
On 22/03/18, 12:31 PM, "Tsz Wo (Nicholas), Sze"
wrote:
+1 (binding)
Tsz-Wo
On Wednesday, March 21, 2018, 10:38:03 PM PDT, Jakob Homan
wrote:
+1 (binding)
On 21 March
+1 (binding)
Tsz-Wo
On Wednesday, March 21, 2018, 10:38:03 PM PDT, Jakob Homan
wrote:
+1 (binding)
On 21 March 2018 at 20:12, Shashikant Banerjee
wrote:
> +1(non-binding)
>
> On 3/21/18, 10:13 AM, "Jitendra Pandey"
+1 (binding)
On 21 March 2018 at 20:12, Shashikant Banerjee
wrote:
> +1(non-binding)
>
> On 3/21/18, 10:13 AM, "Jitendra Pandey" wrote:
>
> +1 (binding)
>
> On 3/20/18, 8:39 PM, "Weiwei Yang" wrote:
>
>
+1(non-binding)
On 3/21/18, 10:13 AM, "Jitendra Pandey" wrote:
+1 (binding)
On 3/20/18, 8:39 PM, "Weiwei Yang" wrote:
+1 (non-binding)
I really like this proposal and thanks for all the discussions.
Hi Andrew,
Thanks for your comment.
>” Having to delete it each time means more work for mainline RMs and more room
>for error.”
The current change that we have done has a maven profile called “–Phdsl,"
without this flag it
will not be compiled and will not be included in source or binary
Hi folks,
Sorry for not replying earlier, I've been on vacation for the last week and
am writing this on my phone from the airport now. Please excuse me if this
is terser than my normal emails.
I really like the direction of Owen's proposal, thanks Owen for driving
this toward a conclusion
+1 (non-binding)
On 3/20/18, 9:43 PM, "Jitendra Pandey" wrote:
+1 (binding)
On 3/20/18, 8:39 PM, "Weiwei Yang" wrote:
+1 (non-binding)
I really like this proposal and thanks for all the discussions.
On Tue, Mar 20, 2018 at 8:34 PM, 郑锴(铁杰) wrote:
> >>* HDSL become a subproject of Hadoop.
> I'm not compfortable with the HDSL name, as Konstantin mentioned. H-DSL
> looks like a DSL language at the first glance.
>
Let's start a separate thread about the name. My
+1 (binding)
On 3/20/18, 8:39 PM, "Weiwei Yang" wrote:
+1 (non-binding)
I really like this proposal and thanks for all the discussions.
--
Weiwei
On 21 Mar 2018, 8:39 AM +0800, Arpit Agarwal ,
wrote:
+1
+1 (non-binding)
I really like this proposal and thanks for all the discussions.
--
Weiwei
On 21 Mar 2018, 8:39 AM +0800, Arpit Agarwal , wrote:
+1 (binding)
Arpit
On 3/20/18, 11:21 AM, "Owen O'Malley" wrote:
All,
Following our discussions
+1 (binding)
Arpit
On 3/20/18, 11:21 AM, "Owen O'Malley" wrote:
All,
Following our discussions on the previous thread (Merging branch HDFS-7240
to trunk), I'd like to propose the following:
* HDSL become a subproject of Hadoop.
* HDSL will
+1 (binding)
sanjay
> On Mar 20, 2018, at 11:20 AM, Owen O'Malley wrote:
>
> All,
>
> Following our discussions on the previous thread (Merging branch HDFS-7240
> to trunk), I'd like to propose the following:
>
> * HDSL become a subproject of Hadoop.
> * HDSL will
+1 (Binding)
Xiaoyu
On 3/20/18, 11:53 AM, "Anu Engineer" wrote:
+1 (Binding)
--Anu
On 3/20/18, 11:21 AM, "Owen O'Malley" wrote:
All,
Following our discussions on the previous thread
+1 (Binding)
--Anu
On 3/20/18, 11:21 AM, "Owen O'Malley" wrote:
All,
Following our discussions on the previous thread (Merging branch HDFS-7240
to trunk), I'd like to propose the following:
* HDSL become a subproject of Hadoop.
* HDSL will
39 matches
Mail list logo