Re: Updated 2.8.0-SNAPSHOT artifact

rs to the list before we release then I'd rather stay where >> > we're at and ship it ASAP. >> > >> > Jason >> > (1) https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=project%20in% >> > 20%28hadoop%2C%20yarn%2C%20mapreduce%2C%20hdfs%29% >> > 20and%20re

Re: [DISCUSS] Release cadence and EOL

r. >>> > >>> > The proposal is a minor release on the latest major line every 6 >>> months, >>> > and a maintenance release on a minor release (as there may be >>> concurrently >>> > maintained minor releases) every 2 months. >>&g

Re: New Hadoop Committer - Daniel Templeton

Apologies for spamming this list. I meant to send it to Cloudera's HDFS team. :) On Fri, Oct 28, 2016 at 10:41 AM, Karthik Kambatla <ka...@cloudera.com> wrote: > (bcc: hdfs-dev@, rm-staff@, eng@, pe-team@, cert@, bd-staff@ - all the > teams at Cloudera Daniel worked on) > > I

New Hadoop Committer - Daniel Templeton

(bcc: hdfs-dev@, rm-staff@, eng@, pe-team@, cert@, bd-staff@ - all the teams at Cloudera Daniel worked on) It gives me immense pleasure to announce that Daniel has been elected a committer on the Apache Hadoop project. Daniel joined the engineering team (HDFS and subsequently RM) last year and

Re: Updated 2.8.0-SNAPSHOT artifact

Is there value in releasing current branch-2.8? Aren't we better off re-cutting the branch off of branch-2? On Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at 12:20 AM, Akira Ajisaka wrote: > It's almost a year since branch-2.8 has cut. > I'm thinking we need to release 2.8.0 ASAP. > >

Re: Chrome extension to collapse JIRA comments

Never included the link :) https://github.com/gezapeti/jira-comment-collapser On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 6:46 PM, Karthik Kambatla <ka...@cloudera.com> wrote: > Hi folks > > Sorry for the widespread email, but thought you would find this useful. > > My colleague, Pe

Chrome extension to collapse JIRA comments

Hi folks Sorry for the widespread email, but thought you would find this useful. My colleague, Peter, had put together this chrome extension to collapse comments from certain users (HadoopQA, Githubbot) that makes tracking conversations in JIRAs much easier. Cheers! Karthik

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Hadoop 2.6.5 (RC1)

Thanks for putting the RC together, Sangjin. +1 (binding) Built from source, deployed pseudo distributed cluster and ran some example MR jobs. On Fri, Oct 7, 2016 at 6:01 PM, Yongjun Zhang wrote: > Hi Sangjin, > > Thanks a lot for your work here. > > My +1 (binding). > >

Re: [DISCUSS] Release cadence and EOL

> > > Here is just an idea to get started. How about "a minor release line is > EOLed 2 years after it is released or there are 2 newer minor releases, > whichever is sooner. The community reserves the right to extend or shorten > the life of a release line if there is a good reason to do so." > >

[DISCUSS] Release cadence and EOL

Forking off this discussion from 2.6.5 release thread. Junping and Chris T have brought up important concerns regarding too many concurrent releases and the lack of EOL for our releases. First up, it would be nice to hear from others on our releases having the notion of EOL and other

Re: [Release thread] 2.6.5 release activities

Since there is sufficient interest in 2.6.5, we should probably do it. All the reasons Allen outlines make sense. That said, Junping brings up a very important point that we should think of for future releases. For a new user or a user that does not directly contribute to the project, more stable

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

to alphaX to betaX to GA; this applies to both the Hadoop-2 model and the 3.0.0-alphaX model. On Tue, Aug 9, 2016 at 6:02 AM, Karthik Kambatla <ka...@cloudera.com> wrote: > Most people I talked to found 3.0.0-alpha, 3.1.0-alpha/beta confusing. I > am not aware of any other software s

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

we should bump up trunk version to 4.x for landing new incompatible > changes. > > Thanks, > > Junping > ________ > From: Karthik Kambatla <ka...@cloudera.com> > Sent: Monday, August 08, 2016 6:54 PM > Cc: common-...@hadoop.apache.org;

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

I like the 3.0.0-alphaX approach primarily for simpler understanding of compatibility guarantees. Calling 3.0.0 alpha and 3.1.0 beta is confusing because, it is not immediately clear that 3.0.0 and 3.1.0 could be incompatible in APIs. I am open to something like 2.98.x for alphas and 2.99.x for

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

Inline. > >> BTW, I never see we have a clear definition for alpha release. It is >> previously used as unstable in API definition (2.1-alpha, 2.2-alpha, etc.) >> but sometimes means unstable in production quality (2.7.0). I think we >> should clearly define it with major consensus so user won't

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

Inline. > 1) Set the fix version for all a.b.c versions, where c > 0. > 2) For each major release line, set the lowest a.b.0 version. > Sounds reasonable. > > The -alphaX versions we're using leading up to 3.0.0 GA can be treated as > a.b.c versions, with alpha1 being the a.b.0 release. >

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Hadoop 2.7.3 RC0

IIRR, the vote is on source artifacts and binaries are for convenience. If that is right, I am open to either options - do another RC or continue this vote and fix the binary artifacts. On Tue, Jul 26, 2016 at 12:11 PM, Vinod Kumar Vavilapalli < vino...@apache.org> wrote: > Thanks Daniel and

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Hadoop 2.7.3 RC0

+1 (binding) * Downloaded and build from source * Checked LICENSE and NOTICE * Pseudo-distributed cluster with FairScheduler * Ran MR and HDFS tests * Verified basic UI On Sun, Jul 24, 2016 at 1:07 PM, larry mccay wrote: > +1 binding > > * downloaded and built from source >

Re: [DISCUSS] Increased use of feature branches

ous and significant: >>> >> > - A lot of commits (incompatible, risky, uncompleted feature, etc.) >>> have >>> >> > to wait to commit to trunk or put into a separated branch that could >>> >> delay >>> >> > feature development

Re: [DISCUSS] Increased use of feature branches

ing the approach for 3.x. The new proposal forces following these requirements and hence I like it more. > > Thanks, > > Junping > > From: Karthik Kambatla <ka...@cloudera.com> > Sent: Friday, June 10, 2016 7:49 AM > To: Andrew Wang > Cc: common-...@hado

Re: [DISCUSS] Increased use of feature branches

Thanks for restarting this thread Andrew. I really hope we can get this across to a VOTE so it is clear. I see a few advantages shipping from trunk: - The lack of need for one additional backport each time. - Feature rot in trunk Instead of creating branch-3, I recommend creating

Re: Looking to a Hadoop 3 release

I am with Vinod on avoiding merging mostly_complete_branches to trunk since we are not shipping any release off it. If 3.x releases going off of trunk is going to help with this, I am fine with that approach. We should still make sure to keep trunk-incompat small and not include large features.

Re: [Release thread] 2.8.0 release activities

Thanks Vinod. Not labeling 2.8.0 stable sounds perfectly reasonable to me. Let us not call it alpha or beta though, it is quite confusing. :) On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 8:17 PM, Gangumalla, Uma wrote: > Thanks Vinod. +1 for 2.8 release start. > > Regards, > Uma > > On

Re: [UPDATE] New ASF git policy on force-pushes / Tags / Stale branches

Filed https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-11136 On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 3:41 PM, Vinod Kumar Vavilapalli wrote: > I believe this is still in place, though I am not sure how we can verify > this (without doing a force-push of course) > > +Vinod > > > One thing that

Re: [UPDATE] New ASF git policy on force-pushes / Tags / Stale branches

+1 on all counts. One thing that wasn't clear from the INFRA announcement: are trunk, branch-* branches protected against force-pushes in the new world? If not, should we ask them to be locked up? Thanks Karthik On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 10:26 PM, Vinod Kumar Vavilapalli < vino...@apache.org>

Highlighting communication on releases

Hi folks In the last few months, we have been shipping multiple releases - maintenance and minor - elevating the quality and purpose of our releases. With the increase in releases and related communication, I wonder if we need to highlight release-related communication in some way. Otherwise, it

Re: [DISCUSS] Looking to a 2.8.0 release

I am really against the notion of calling x.y.0 releases alpha/beta; it is very confusing. If we think a release is alpha/beta quality, why not release it as x.y.0-alpha or x.y.0-beta, and follow it up eventually with x.y.0 GA. I am in favor of labeling any of the newer features to be of

Re: [DISCUSS] Looking to a 2.8.0 release

Did we consider cutting a branch-3 that borrows relatively compatible patches from trunk to run the 3.x line? That said, I would like for us to really tighten our compatibility policies and actually stick to them starting the next major release. On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 1:11 PM, Vinod Vavilapalli

Re: 2.7.2 release plan

I would like for us to make sure later maintenance releases are more stable than previous ones. IMO, increasing stability is more important than the timing of a release. Will adding all the patches in 2.7.3 reduce the stability going from 2.7.2 to 2.7.3? If yes, can we just leave them for 2.8.0?

Re: [DISCUSS] About the details of JDK-8 support

On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 4:28 PM, Allen Wittenauer wrote: > > If people want, I could setup a cut off of yetus master to run the jenkins > test-patch. (multiple maven repos, docker support, multijdk support, … ) > Yetus would get some real world testing out of it and hadoop

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Hadoop 2.6.1 RC1

+1 (binding) Ran a few MR jobs on a pseudo-distributed cluster on Java 8. On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 8:09 AM, Masatake Iwasaki < iwasak...@oss.nttdata.co.jp> wrote: > +1(non-binding) > > - verified mds and signature of source and binary tarball > - built from source tarball with -Pnative on CentOS

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Hadoop 2.7.1 RC0

of the planned [1] 2 weeks in getting this release out: post-mortem in a separate thread. [1]: A 2.7.1 release to follow up 2.7.0 http://markmail.org/thread/zwzze6cqqgwq4rmw -- Karthik Kambatla Software Engineer, Cloudera Inc. http://five.sentenc.es

Re: IMPORTANT: automatic changelog creation

Huge +1 On Thursday, July 2, 2015, Chris Nauroth cnaur...@hortonworks.com wrote: +1 Thank you to Allen for the script, and thank you to Andrew for volunteering to drive the conversion. --Chris Nauroth On 7/2/15, 2:01 PM, Andrew Wang andrew.w...@cloudera.com javascript:; wrote: Hi

Re: [DISCUSS] branch-1

2013 …. I guess we need a PMC member to declare a vote or whatever…. -- Karthik Kambatla Software Engineer, Cloudera Inc. http://five.sentenc.es

Re: [DISCUSS] branch-1

intention of working on the 1.3 release, especially given that 1.2.1 was Aug 2013 …. I guess we need a PMC member to declare a vote or whatever…. -- Karthik Kambatla Software Engineer, Cloudera Inc. http://five.sentenc.es

Re: [DISCUSS] Looking to a 2.8.0 release

? Thanks +Vinod -- Karthik Kambatla Software Engineer, Cloudera Inc. http://five.sentenc.es

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Hadoop 2.7.0 RC0

. Thanks, Vinod [1]: A 2.7.1 release to follow up 2.7.0 http://markmail.org/thread/zwzze6cqqgwq4rmw -- Karthik Kambatla Software Engineer, Cloudera Inc. http://five.sentenc.es

Re: Removal of unused properties

at least for one major release before being removed. http://hadoop.apache.org/docs/r2.6.0/hadoop-project-dist/ hadoop-common/Compatibility.html#Hadoop_Configuration_Files Is it applicable for unused properties? Can we remove unused properties right now? Regards, Akira -- Karthik Kambatla

Re: A 2.7.1 release to follow up 2.7.0

incompatibilities with 2.7.0, we can fix those in 2.7.1 and promote that to be the stable release. Sounds reasonable. Thoughts? Thanks,+Vinod -- Karthik Kambatla Software Engineer, Cloudera Inc. http://five.sentenc.es

Uncertainty of pre-commit builds

were run against one of the MR modules. I suspect there is a race condition when there are multiple builds executing on the same node, or remnants from a previous run are getting picked up. Filed HADOOP-11779 for this. -- Karthik Kambatla Software Engineer, Cloudera Inc

Re: Uncertainty of pre-commit builds

race if Jenkins doesn’t setup the environment correctly or leaks variables between runs. shellcheck prints out so many messages on the current code I’m surprised it doesn’t crash. On Mar 31, 2015, at 9:21 AM, Karthik Kambatla ka...@cloudera.com wrote: Hi devs, I am sure people must have

Re: Hadoop 3.x: what about shipping trunk as a 2.x release in 2015?

release and fixed shell scripts items, pushing out those benefits to people sooner rather than later, and puts off the Hello, we've just broken your code event for another 12+ months. Comments? -Steve -- Karthik Kambatla Software Engineer, Cloudera Inc

Re: Reviving HADOOP-7435: Making Jenkins pre-commit build work with branches

before. This may need us to collectively agree on some convention - the last comment says that the branch patch name should be in some format for this to work. Thanks, +Vinod -- Karthik Kambatla Software Engineer, Cloudera Inc. http

Re: Looking to a Hadoop 3 release

makes backports easier, since we're likely maintaining 2.x for a while yet. Please let me know any comments / concerns related to the above. If people are friendly to the idea, I'd like to cut a branch-3 and start working on the first alpha. Best, Andrew -- Karthik Kambatla

Re: Looking to a Hadoop 3 release

backports easier, since we're likely maintaining 2.x for a while yet. Please let me know any comments / concerns related to the above. If people are friendly to the idea, I'd like to cut a branch-3 and start working on the first alpha. Best, Andrew -- Karthik Kambatla Software Engineer

Re: DISCUSSION: Patch commit criteria.

for this community so far. I think most of the discrepancies arise from the fact that reviewers are hard to find. May be this should be the focus of improvements rather than the RTC rules. Thanks, --Konst -- Karthik Kambatla Software Engineer, Cloudera Inc

Re: 2.7 status

status of the 2.7 release? I know initially it started out as a java-7 only release, but looking at the JIRAs that is very much not the case. Do we have a certain timeframe for 2.7 or is it time to discuss it? Thanks, Sangjin -- Karthik Kambatla Software Engineer, Cloudera Inc

Re: Upgrading findbugs

this communication in error, please contact the sender immediately and delete it from your system. Thank You. -- Karthik Kambatla Software Engineer, Cloudera Inc. http://five.sentenc.es

Re: Thinking ahead to hadoop-2.7

positioned as the JDK7-only release, then it would be good to know how 2.8 lines up in terms of timing. Our interest is landing the shared cache feature (YARN-1492)... Thanks. Sangjin On Mon, Dec 1, 2014 at 2:55 PM, Karthik Kambatla ka...@cloudera.com wrote: Thanks

Renamed HowToCommit wikis

Folks, I just renamed (1) the old HowToCommit to HowToCommitWithSvn, and (2) the new HowToCommitWithGit to HowToCommit. Thanks Karthik -- Karthik Kambatla Software Engineer, Cloudera Inc. http://five.sentenc.es

Re: Thinking ahead to hadoop-2.7

Thanks for starting this thread, Arun. Your proposal seems reasonable to me. I suppose we would like new features and improvements to go into 2.8 then? If yes, what time frame are we looking at for 2.8? Looking at YARN, it would be nice to get a release with shared-cache and a stable version of

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Hadoop 2.6.0

+1 (binding) on the source tarball, would be nice to redo the binary tarball. - Stood up a pseudo-dist cluster, and ran some HDFS and MR jobs. - The binary is about 40 MB larger than the previous release; it appears the docs are copied over twice - share/doc/hadoop and share/hadoop. The binary

[jira] [Resolved] (HDFS-7275) Add TLSv1.1,TLSv1.2 to HttpFS

[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HDFS-7275?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel ] Karthik Kambatla resolved HDFS-7275. Resolution: Duplicate Add TLSv1.1,TLSv1.2 to HttpFS

Re: Thinking ahead to hadoop-2.6

Looking at the patches, we might be able to get most of YARN-1492 in by the end of next week. There would be a couple of security items still remaining, but we can may be call the feature alpha-ready without them. On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 4:25 PM, Chris Trezzo ctre...@gmail.com wrote: I would

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Hadoop 2.5.1 RC0

HADOOP-11078 to track this. Regards, Akira (2014/09/09 0:51), Karthik Kambatla wrote: +1 (non-binding) Built the source tarball, brought up a pseudo-distributed cluster and ran a few MR jobs. Verified documentation and size of the binary tarball. On Fri, Sep 5, 2014 at 5:18 PM

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Hadoop 2.5.1 RC0

+1 (non-binding) Built the source tarball, brought up a pseudo-distributed cluster and ran a few MR jobs. Verified documentation and size of the binary tarball. On Fri, Sep 5, 2014 at 5:18 PM, Karthik Kambatla ka...@cloudera.com wrote: Hi folks, I have put together a release candidate (RC0

[VOTE] Release Apache Hadoop 2.5.1 RC0

Hi folks, I have put together a release candidate (RC0) for Hadoop 2.5.1. The RC is available at: http://people.apache.org/~kasha/hadoop-2.5.1-RC0/ The RC git tag is release-2.5.1-RC0 The maven artifacts are staged at: https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachehadoop-1010/ You

[DISCUSS] Hadoop 2.5.1

Hi folks Now that all issues with target 2.5.1 are committed, I am planning to cut an RC for 2.5.1 this Friday. The fixes going into 2.5.1 are - http://s.apache.org/2Mz Are there any other Blocker issues that we would like to get into 2.5.1? If there are any, please mark them as Blocker and

Git repo ready to use

Hi folks, I am very excited to let you know that the git repo is now writable. I committed a few changes (CHANGES.txt fixes and branching for 2.5.1) and everything looks good. Current status: 1. All branches have the same names, including trunk. 2. Force push is disabled on trunk,

Re: Git repo ready to use

Oh.. a couple more things. The git commit hashes have changed and are different from what we had on our github. This might interfere with any build automations that folks have. Another follow-up item: email and JIRA integration On Wed, Aug 27, 2014 at 1:33 AM, Karthik Kambatla ka

Re: Git repo ready to use

at 1:40 AM, Karthik Kambatla ka...@cloudera.com wrote: Oh.. a couple more things. The git commit hashes have changed and are different from what we had on our github. This might interfere with any build automations that folks have. Another follow-up item: email and JIRA integration On Wed

Re: Git repo ready to use

It appears the comments from Hudson on our JIRAs (post commits) are not setup by the INFRA team. Do we use any other scripts for this? If yes, do we want to fix those scripts or use svngit2jira? On Wed, Aug 27, 2014 at 10:18 AM, Karthik Kambatla ka...@cloudera.com wrote: The emails for commits

Re: Git repo ready to use

=cloudstack.git;h=7260e8d This is more concise and easier to look at than the Hudson list. On Wed, Aug 27, 2014 at 10:48 AM, Karthik Kambatla ka...@cloudera.com wrote: It appears the comments from Hudson on our JIRAs (post commits) are not setup by the INFRA team. Do we use any other scripts

Re: Updates on migration to git

Last I heard, the import is still going on and appears closer to getting done. Thanks for your patience with the migration. I ll update you as and when there is something. Eventually, the git repo should be at the location in the wiki. On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 3:45 PM, Karthik Kambatla ka

Re: Updates on migration to git

basis. Was there any voting on this in PMC and should we have a vote to ensure everyone is one the same page on doing this and how to go about it? Regards, Suresh On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 9:17 AM, Karthik Kambatla ka...@cloudera.com wrote: Last I heard, the import is still going

Re: Updates on migration to git

The git repository is now ready for inspection. I ll take a look shortly, but it would be great if a few others could too. Once we are okay with it, we can ask it to be writable. On Tuesday, August 26, 2014, Karthik Kambatla ka...@cloudera.com wrote: Hi Suresh There was one vote thread

Re: Updates on migration to git

and branch-2, verified all the branches are present. Also checked a few branches and the recent commit history matches our existing repo. Everything looks good so far. On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 1:19 PM, Karthik Kambatla ka...@cloudera.com wrote: The git repository is now ready for inspection. I ll

Re: Updates on migration to git

, but it doesn't have to be. For git-flow workflows (which we use in slider) master/ is for releases, develop/ for dev. On 24 August 2014 02:31, Karthik Kambatla ka...@cloudera.com wrote: Couple of things: 1. Since no one expressed any reservations against doing this on Sunday

Re: Updates on migration to git

, Karthik Kambatla ka...@cloudera.com wrote: Thanks for your input, Steve. Sorry for sending the email out that late, I sent it as soon as I could. On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 2:20 AM, Steve Loughran ste...@hortonworks.com wrote: just caught up with this after some offlininess...15:48 PST

Re: Updates on migration to git

Thanks Giri. By the way, writes to svn are now disabled. On Saturday, August 23, 2014, Giridharan Kesavan gkesa...@hortonworks.com wrote: ​I can take a look at this on Monday. ​ -giri On Sat, Aug 23, 2014 at 6:31 PM, Karthik Kambatla ka...@cloudera.com javascript:; wrote: Couple

Re: Updates on migration to git

understand Giri maintains those builds, do we have anyone else who has access in case Giri is not reachable? Giri - please shout out if you can help us with this either on Sunday or Monday. Thanks Karthik On Fri, Aug 22, 2014 at 3:50 PM, Karthik Kambatla ka...@cloudera.com wrote: Also, does

Updates on migration to git

Hi folks, For the SCM migration, feel free to follow https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-8195 Most of this is planned to be handled this Sunday. As a result, the subversion repository would be read-only. If this is a major issue for you, please shout out. Daniel Gruno, the one helping

Re: Updates on migration to git

Also, does anyone know what we use for integration between JIRA and svn? I am assuming svn2jira. On Fri, Aug 22, 2014 at 3:48 PM, Karthik Kambatla ka...@cloudera.com wrote: Hi folks, For the SCM migration, feel free to follow https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-8195 Most

Apache Hadoop 2.5.0 published tarballs are missing some txt files

Hi devs Tsuyoshi just brought it to my notice that the published tarballs don't have LICENSE, NOTICE and README at the top-level. Instead, they are only under common, hdfs, etc. Now that we have already announced the release and the jars/functionality doesn't change, I propose we just update the

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

Filed https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-8195. I encourage folks to watch the issue and at least some of us help with verifying the migration moves everything. On Sat, Aug 16, 2014 at 8:25 AM, Karthik Kambatla ka...@cloudera.com wrote: Thanks everyone for voting. Here is my +1 (non

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

hit...@apache.org wrote: +1 — Hitesh On Aug 8, 2014, at 7:57 PM, Karthik Kambatla ka...@cloudera.com 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

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Hadoop 2.5.0 RC2

on this Karthik. Arun On Aug 6, 2014, at 1:59 PM, Karthik Kambatla ka...@cloudera.com wrote: Hi folks, I have put together a release candidate (rc2) for Hadoop 2.5.0. The RC is available at: http://people.apache.org/~kasha/hadoop-2.5.0-RC2/ The RC tag in svn is here: https

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Hadoop 2.5.0 RC2

, could you create new tar ball with the documentations? Thanks, - Tsuyoshi On Thu, Aug 7, 2014 at 5:59 AM, Karthik Kambatla ka...@cloudera.com wrote: Hi folks, I have put together a release candidate (rc2) for Hadoop 2.5.0. The RC is available at: http://people.apache.org/~kasha

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Hadoop 2.5.0 RC2

Can someone please verify the signatures on the new binary and the old source tarballs to make sure it is all good? If it is, I believe we can go ahead and close the vote. On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 9:49 PM, Karthik Kambatla ka...@cloudera.com wrote: I have updated the binary tar ball to include

Re: [DISCUSS] Migrate from svn to git for source control?

Thanks Steve. Including that in the proposal. By the way, from our project bylaws (http://hadoop.apache.org/bylaws.html), I can't tell what kind of a vote this would be. On Thu, Aug 7, 2014 at 1:22 AM, Steve Loughran ste...@hortonworks.com wrote: On 6 August 2014 22:16, Karthik Kambatla ka

[VOTE] Migration from subversion to git for version control

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 trunk and branch-* branches. Applying changes from any of

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Hadoop 2.5.0 RC1

-test-options.xml for the contract tests. All passed On 6 August 2014 01:37, Karthik Kambatla ka...@cloudera.com wrote: Hi folks, I have put together a release candidate (rc1) for Hadoop 2.5.0. The RC is available at: http://people.apache.org/~kasha/hadoop-2.5.0-RC1

[VOTE] Release Apache Hadoop 2.5.0 RC2

Hi folks, I have put together a release candidate (rc2) for Hadoop 2.5.0. The RC is available at: http://people.apache.org/~kasha/hadoop-2.5.0-RC2/ The RC tag in svn is here: https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/hadoop/common/tags/release-2.5.0-rc2/ The maven artifacts are staged at:

Re: [DISCUSS] Migrate from svn to git for source control?

, Karthik Kambatla ka...@cloudera.com wrote: If we are to start a vote thread, will people prefer a vote thread that includes potential workflows as well? On Tue, Aug 5, 2014 at 5:40 PM, Karthik Kambatla ka...@cloudera.com wrote: Thanks for your

[jira] [Reopened] (HDFS-6717) Jira HDFS-5804 breaks default nfs-gateway behavior for unsecured config

[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HDFS-6717?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel ] Karthik Kambatla reopened HDFS-6717: Looks like this got mistakenly committed to branch-2.5, given this is a Minor issue. I am

[jira] [Resolved] (HDFS-6717) Jira HDFS-5804 breaks default nfs-gateway behavior for unsecured config

[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HDFS-6717?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel ] Karthik Kambatla resolved HDFS-6717. Resolution: Fixed Fix Version/s: (was: 2.5.0) 2.6.0 Reverted

[VOTE] Release Apache Hadoop 2.5.0 RC1

Hi folks, I have put together a release candidate (rc1) for Hadoop 2.5.0. The RC is available at: http://people.apache.org/~kasha/hadoop-2.5.0-RC1/ The RC tag in svn is here: https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/hadoop/common/tags/release-2.5.0-rc1/ The maven artifacts are staged at:

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Hadoop 2.5.0

This vote is cancelled due to the incompatible issue. On Fri, Aug 1, 2014 at 5:28 PM, Karthik Kambatla ka...@cloudera.com wrote: Missed Andrew's email in the other thread. Looks like we might need HDFS-6793. I ll wait to see if others find any other issues, so I can address them all

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Hadoop 2.5.0 RC1

+1 (non-binding) Brought up a pseudo distributed cluster. Ran a few HDFS operations and a couple of example MR jobs. Checked metrics being written out through FileSink. On Tue, Aug 5, 2014 at 5:37 PM, Karthik Kambatla ka...@cloudera.com wrote: Hi folks, I have put together a release

Re: Branching 2.5

, Jul 29, 2014 at 5:41 PM, Karthik Kambatla ka...@cloudera.com wrote: Devs, I created branch-2.5.0 and was trying to cut an RC, but ran into issues with creating one. If anyone knows what is going on, please help me out. I ll continue looking into it otherwise. https

[VOTE] Release Apache Hadoop 2.5.0

Hi folks, I have put together a release candidate (rc0) for Hadoop 2.5.0. The RC is available at: http://people.apache.org/~kasha/hadoop-2.5.0-RC0/ The RC tag in svn is here: https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/hadoop/common/tags/release-2.5.0-rc0/ The maven artifacts are staged at

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Hadoop 2.5.0

I am obviously a +1 (non-binding). I brought a pseudo-distributed cluster and ran a few HDFS commands and MR jobs. On Fri, Aug 1, 2014 at 4:16 PM, Karthik Kambatla ka...@cloudera.com wrote: Hi folks, I have put together a release candidate (rc0) for Hadoop 2.5.0. The RC is available

[DISCUSS] Migrate from svn to git for source control?

Hi folks, From what I hear, a lot of devs use the git mirror for development/reviews and use subversion primarily for checking code in. I was wondering if it would make more sense just to move to git. In addition to subjective liking of git, I see the following advantages in our workflow: 1.

Re: Branching 2.5

Tom White helped me figure it out, and closed the Nexus repository for me. Thanks Tom for helping and Stack for offering to help. On Fri, Aug 1, 2014 at 11:28 AM, Karthik Kambatla ka...@cloudera.com wrote: Folks, I think we are very close to voting on RC0. Just wanted to check one

Re: Branching 2.5

at 11:09 AM, Zhijie Shen zs...@hortonworks.com wrote: I've just committed YARN-2247, which is the last 2.5 blocker from YARN. On Sat, Jul 26, 2014 at 5:02 AM, Karthik Kambatla ka...@cloudera.com wrote: A quick update: All remaining blockers are on the verge of getting committed

Re: Branching 2.5

committed YARN-2247, which is the last 2.5 blocker from YARN. On Sat, Jul 26, 2014 at 5:02 AM, Karthik Kambatla ka...@cloudera.com wrote: A quick update: All remaining blockers are on the verge of getting committed. Once that is done, I plan to cut a branch for 2.5.0 and get an RC out

Re: [DISCUSS] Assume Private-Unstable for classes that are not annotated

is consistent with what we publish for our JavaDocs. IncludePublicAnnotationsStandardDoclet, used in the root pom.xml, filters out classes that don't explicitly have the Public annotation. Chris Nauroth Hortonworks http://hortonworks.com/ On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 10:55 AM, Karthik Kambatla ka

Re: Branching 2.5

if there's any related issues to me. :) Thanks, Wangda On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 5:54 AM, Karthik Kambatla ka...@cloudera.com wrote: We are down to 4 blockers and looks like they are all actively being worked on. Please reconsider marking new

Re: [DISCUSS] Assume Private-Unstable for classes that are not annotated

to track those rather than track all the classes that should be @Private. Hopefully if users understand that's how things work they'll help file JIRAs for interfaces that need to be @Public to get their work done. Jason On 07/22/2014 04:54 PM, Karthik Kambatla wrote: Hi devs As you might

[DISCUSS] Assume Private-Unstable for classes that are not annotated

Hi devs As you might have noticed, we have several classes and methods in them that are not annotated at all. This is seldom intentional. Avoiding incompatible changes to all these classes can be considerable baggage. I was wondering if we should add an explicit disclaimer in our compatibility

  1   2   >