+1 (binding)
I participated in the review for the reader authorization and verified that
ATSv2 has no significant impact when disabled. Looking forward to seeing
the next increment in functionality in a release. A big thank you to
everyone involved in this effort!
Jason
On Tue, Aug 22, 2017 a
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MAPREDUCE-6641?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Jason Lowe reopened MAPREDUCE-6641:
---
Seeing this fail the same way in 2.8 builds as well. Unfortunately since the
fix uses lambda
Hi All
Update on 2.8.2 release status
we are down to 3 critical issues ( YARN-6091,YARN-7083,HADOOP-9747),all are
patch available and closer to commit.
Junping is closing tracking this.
Todo:
1) Update pom.xml ..? currently it's with 2.8.3
https://github.com/apache/hadoop/blob/branch-2.8.2/pom
For more details, see
https://builds.apache.org/job/hadoop-qbt-trunk-java8-linux-x86/507/
[Aug 28, 2017 6:52:56 AM] (sunilg) YARN-7051. Avoid concurrent modification
exception in
[Aug 28, 2017 5:09:46 PM] (yufei) YARN-7099.
ResourceHandlerModule.parseConfiguredCGroupPath only works
[Aug 28, 201
+1
I helped deploy and run the ATSv2 aux service on a cluster with ~400 node
managers on it. I also verified that ATSv2 has no significant impact when
disabled.
Nice work everyone!
On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 6:17 AM, Aaron Gresch wrote:
> +1 non-binding
>
> I did some testing with security off ru
Hi Andrew,
As Rohith mentioned, if you are good with it, from the TSv2 side, we are
ready to go for merge tonight itself (Pacific time) right after the voting
period ends. Varun Saxena has been diligently rebasing up until now so most
likely our merge should be reasonably straightforward.
@Wangda
+1 (binding).
Kudos to all the team members for their great work!
Being part of the ATSv2 team, I have been involved with either development
or review of most of the JIRAs'.
Tested ATSv2 in both secure and non-secure mode. Also verified that there
is no impact when ATSv2 is turned off.
Regards,
Sure. Ping me when the TSv2 goes in, and I can take care of branching.
We're still waiting on the native services and S3Guard merges, but I don't
want to hold branching to the last minute.
On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 10:51 AM, Vrushali C
wrote:
> Hi Andrew,
> As Rohith mentioned, if you are good wi
Vrushali,
Sure we can wait TSv2 merged before merge resource profile branch.
Andrew,
My understanding is you're going to cut branch-3.0 for 3.0-beta1, and the
same branch (branch-3.0) will be used for 3.0-GA as well. So my question
is, there're several features (TSv2, resource profile, YARN-5734
Hi Wangda,
I'll cut two branches: branch-3.0 (3.0.0-SNAPSHOT) and branch-3.0.0-beta1
(3.0.0-beta1-SNAPSHOT). This way we can merge GA features to branch-3.0 but
not branch-3.0.0-beta1.
Best,
Andrew
On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 11:18 AM, Wangda Tan wrote:
> Vrushali,
>
> Sure we can wait TSv2 merged
Gotcha, make sense, so I will hold commit until you cut the two branches
and TSv2 get committed.
Thanks,
Wangda
On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 11:25 AM, Andrew Wang
wrote:
> Hi Wangda,
>
> I'll cut two branches: branch-3.0 (3.0.0-SNAPSHOT) and branch-3.0.0-beta1
> (3.0.0-beta1-SNAPSHOT). This way we c
Andrew,
First up thanks for tirelessly pushing on 3.0 release.
I am confused about your comment on creating 2 branches as my understanding
of Jason's (and Vinod's) comments are that we defer creating branch-3?
IMHO, we should consider creating branch-3 (necessary but not sufficient)
only when we
Hi Subru,
Basically we're amending the proposal from the original email in the chain
to also immediately create the branch-3.0.0-beta1 release branch. As
described in my 2017-08-25 wiki update, we're gating the merge of these two
features to branch-3.0 on additional testing, but this keeps 3.0.0
Hi Vinod,
On Fri, Aug 25, 2017 at 2:42 PM, Vinod Kumar Vavilapalli wrote:
> > From a release management perspective, it's *extremely* reasonable to
> block the inclusion of new features a month from the planned release date.
> A typical software development lifecycle includes weeks of feature fr
bq. I don't think it's a lot to ask that feature leads shoot an email to
the release manager of their target version. DISCUSS emails right before a
proposed merge VOTE are way too late, it ends up being a fire drill where
we need to scramble on many fronts.
Yes, I have been thinking about this too
I'm adding my +1 (binding) to conclude the vote.
With 13 +1's (11 binding) and no -1's, the vote passes. We'll get on with
the merge to trunk shortly. Thanks everyone!
Regards
Vrushali
On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 10:54 AM, varunsax...@apache.org <
varun.saxena.apa...@gmail.com> wrote:
> +1 (bindin
Hi Andrew,
We have completed the merge of TSv2 to trunk.
You can now go ahead with the branching.
Regards,
Varun Saxena.
On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 11:35 PM, Andrew Wang
wrote:
> Sure. Ping me when the TSv2 goes in, and I can take care of branching.
>
> We're still waiting on the native services
17 matches
Mail list logo
