Re: Planning for 3.0.0-alpha2

2017-01-19 Thread Akira Ajisaka
Thanks Sangjin for finding this. > It looks like hadoop-cloud-storage-project was missed in the version set? Yes. Probably this is because hadoop-cloud-storage-project is missing in pom.xml so `mvn versions:set` did not work for the project. Filed HADOOP-14004 for fixing this. Regards, Ak

Re: Planning for 3.0.0-alpha2

2017-01-19 Thread Sangjin Lee
It looks like hadoop-cloud-storage-project was missed in the version set? On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 4:19 PM, Andrew Wang wrote: > I've branched branch-3.0.0-alpha2 and moved out the target versions except > for our last blocker to a new 3.0.0-alpha3 version. > > Business can continue as usual, ple

Re: [VOTE] Release cadence and EOL

2017-01-19 Thread Chris Douglas
Sorry, I'd missed the end of the EOL discussion thread. As several people have pointed out, this is unenforceable. The release dates on the front page are a decent signal for liveness... do we need something more formal? All these hypothetical situations would be decided with more context. The "go

Re: [Continued] [Release thread] 2.8.0 release activities

2017-01-19 Thread Junping Du
According to Varun's offline email, the security fixes has landed on branch-2, 2.8 and 2.8.0 branch. I was kicking off a new RC build (RC1), and will publish it for vote soon. In the mean time, please mark fix version as 2.8.1 for any new commits landed on branch-2.8, and don't commit anything

Re: Planning for 3.0.0-alpha2

2017-01-19 Thread Andrew Wang
I've branched branch-3.0.0-alpha2 and moved out the target versions except for our last blocker to a new 3.0.0-alpha3 version. Business can continue as usual, please just set target/fix versions of 3.0.0-alpha3 now instead of 3.0.0-alpha2. Thanks, Andrew On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 3:52 PM, Andrew W

Re: Planning for 3.0.0-alpha2

2017-01-19 Thread Andrew Wang
Heads up that I'm branching for 3.0.0-alpha2 and moving out targets versions. We're waiting on one last blocker which is in final stages of review. Best, Andrew On Wed, Jan 4, 2017 at 11:15 AM, Andrew Wang wrote: > Hi folks, > > Thanks to the hard work of many contributors, we've been steadily

Re: [VOTE] Release cadence and EOL

2017-01-19 Thread Andrew Wang
I don't think the motivation here is vendor play or taking away power from committers. Having a regular release cadence helps our users understand when a feature will ship so they can plan their upgrades. Having an EOL policy and a minimum support period helps users choose a release line, and under

Re: [VOTE] Release cadence and EOL

2017-01-19 Thread Arpit Agarwal
The ASF release policy says releases may not be vetoed [1] so the EOL policy sounds unenforceable. Not sure a release cadence is enforceable either since Release Managers are volunteers. 1. https://www.apache.org/dev/release.html#approving-a-release On 1/18/17, 7:06 PM, "Junping Du" wrote:

[jira] [Created] (MAPREDUCE-6833) Display only corresponding Task logs for each task attempt in AM and JHS Web UI

2017-01-19 Thread Devaraj K (JIRA)
Devaraj K created MAPREDUCE-6833: Summary: Display only corresponding Task logs for each task attempt in AM and JHS Web UI Key: MAPREDUCE-6833 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MAPREDUCE-6833