Re: [DICUSS] Upgrading Guice to 4.0(HADOOP-12064)

My strong expectation is that we’ll have a version of classpath isolation in our first release of 3.x. I’m planning to spending some cycles right away on this. Assuming classpath isolation gets in, it is reasonable to bump up our dependencies like Jetty / Guice to the latest stable versions. T

Re: Setting JIRA fix versions for 3.0.0 releases

The L & N fixes just went out, I’m working to push out 2.7.3 - running into a Nexus issue. Once that goes out, I’ll immediately do a 2.8.0. Like I requested before in one of the 3.x threads, can we just line up 3.0.0-alpha1 right behind 2.8.0? That simplifies most of this confusion, we can avoi

Re: Setting JIRA fix versions for 3.0.0 releases

> I really, really want a 3.0.0-alpha1 ASAP, since it's basically impossible > for downstreams to test incompat changes and new features without a release > artifact. I've been doing test builds, and branch-3.0.0-alpha1 is ready for > an RC besides possibly this fix version issue. Not arguing a

Re: Setting JIRA fix versions for 3.0.0 releases

I’ve been using jdiff simply because of a lack of alternative. If you’ve had experience with tool [1], if you think it serves our purpose, and if you can spare some time, that’ll be greatly appreciated. I can also pitch in with whatever help is needed. I think we should pick one of 2.6.3 or 2.7

[VOTE] Release Apache Hadoop 2.7.3 RC0

Hi all, I've created a release candidate RC0 for Apache Hadoop 2.7.3. As discussed before, this is the next maintenance release to follow up 2.7.2. The RC is available for validation at: http://home.apache.org/~vinodkv/hadoop-2.7.3-RC0/ The

Re: Setting JIRA fix versions for 3.0.0 releases

won’t do much good. Whenever we start working towards switching to this tool, it should incorporate the same exclude-annotations logic that the jdiff code-path does today. Do you think that is possible? Thanks +Vinod > On Jul 22, 2016, at 4:53 PM, Vinod Kumar Vavilapalli > wrote: >

Re: Setting JIRA fix versions for 3.0.0 releases

>> There's a plan for more 3.0.0 alphas, so there's still time to help out > before things settle down for beta. If 2.8.0 is ready to go, it should > happen before even alpha2. I wasn’t talk about my irresistible urge to help (which of course is there : )) , it was about making sure enough eye-ba

Re: Setting JIRA fix versions for 3.0.0 releases

Please don’t do this for 2.8.0 against 2.7.0 till we change our existing release ordering conventions. Till now, I made sure 2.8.0 only has issues that are not in 2.7.3 - per the 2.8.0-follows-2.7.3 convention. As part of the release process, I will fix the remaining tickets to follow this same

Re: [Release thread] 2.8.0 release activities

r/critical issues for > 2.8.0? I still see 50 open JIRAs in Vinod's list: > https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?filter=12334985 > > But I see a lot of JIRAs with no patches or very stale patches. It > would be > a good exercise to come up with the list of JIRAs th

Re: Setting JIRA fix versions for 3.0.0 releases

+1 Thanks +Vinod > On Jul 26, 2016, at 7:39 AM, Wangda Tan wrote: > > lets try to use both jdiff and the new tool and compare results because this > is the first time with the new tool. > > Appreciate your time to help us about this effort!

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

Forking the thread to make sure it attracts enough eye-balls. The earlier one was about 3.0.0 specifically and I don’t think enough people were watching that. I’ll try to summarize a bit. # Today’s state of release numbering and ordering: So far, all the releases we have done, we have follow

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Hadoop 2.7.3 RC0

for all the release work ! > +1 (non-binding). > * Downloaded from source and built it.* Deployed a pseudo distributed cluster. > * Ran some sample jobs: sleep, pi* Ran some dfs commands.* Everything works > fine. > > > On Friday, July 22, 2016 9:16 PM, Vinod Kumar Vavil

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Hadoop 2.7.3 RC0

But, everyone please do continue your sanity checking on RC0 in case there are more issues to be fixed. Thanks +Vinod > On Jul 26, 2016, at 12:11 PM, Vinod Kumar Vavilapalli > wrote: > > Thanks Daniel and Wei. > > I think these are worth fixing, I’m withdrawing this RC. W

[VOTE] Release Apache Hadoop 2.7.3 RC1

Hi all, I've created a release candidate RC1 for Apache Hadoop 2.7.3. As discussed before, this is the next maintenance release to follow up 2.7.2. The RC is available for validation at: http://home.apache.org/~vinodkv/hadoop-2.7.3-RC1/ The

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Hadoop 2.7.3 RC1

6749130b67cd4da52f> > > > Thanks, > Marco > > > > 2016-08-12 18:45 GMT+02:00 Vinod Kumar Vavilapalli <mailto:vino...@apache.org>>: > Hi all, > > I've created a release candidate RC1 for Apache Hadoop 2.7.3. > > As discu

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Hadoop 2.7.3 RC1

Thanks Steve, this is one area that isn’t very well release-tested usually! +Vinod > On Aug 16, 2016, at 2:25 AM, Steve Loughran wrote: > > I've just looked at the staged JARs and how they worked with downstream apps > —that being a key way that Hadoop artifacts are adopted.

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Hadoop 2.7.3 RC1

for this change? > > >> On Aug 12, 2016, at 9:45 AM, Vinod Kumar Vavilapalli >> wrote: >> >> Hi all, >> >> I've created a release candidate RC1 for Apache Hadoop 2.7.3. >> >> As discussed before, this is the next maintenance relea

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Hadoop 2.7.3 RC1

; c) Where is the release note for this change? >> >> >>> On Aug 12, 2016, at 9:45 AM, Vinod Kumar Vavilapalli >>> wrote: >>> >>> Hi all, >>> >>> I've created a release candidate RC1 for Apache Hadoop 2.7.3. >>> >

[VOTE] Release Apache Hadoop 2.7.3 RC2

Hi all, I've created a new release candidate RC2 for Apache Hadoop 2.7.3. As discussed before, this is the next maintenance release to follow up 2.7.2. The RC is available for validation at: http://home.apache.org/~vinodkv/hadoop-2.7.3-RC2/

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Hadoop 2.7.3 RC2

Too late for 2.7.3 - I want us to quickly get back to a regular cadence of releases. Doesn’t look like a regression IAC. Let’s put it in the next release if needed. Thanks +Vinod > On Aug 22, 2016, at 6:19 AM, Brahma Reddy Battula > wrote: > > Felt like HDFS-8388, should be in for 2.7.3

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Hadoop 2.7.3 RC2

Lowe >> wrote: >> >>> +1 (binding) >>> - Verified signatures and digests- Successfully built from source with >>> native support- Deployed a single-node cluster- Ran some sample jobs >>> successfully >>> >>> Jason >>> >>

Re: About 2.7.4 Release

I was planning to take this up, celebrating my return from my paternity leave of absence for quite a while. Marton, let me know if you do want to take this up instead and we can work together. Thanks +Vinod > On Mar 7, 2017, at 9:13 AM, Sangjin Lee wrote: > > If we have a volunteer for relea

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Hadoop 2.8.0 (RC2)

Thanks for taking the mantle from me on 2.8.0 and some persistent work getting 2.8.0 out the door, Junping! Apologies for bringing this up late, but I’d like to add one comment. We should repeat what we did for 2.7.0 and In line with our experience there, we should annotate this release as not

Re: About 2.7.4 Release

Thanks for taking 2.7.4 over Konstantin! Regarding rolling RC next week, I still see that there are 4 blocker / critical tickets targeted for 2.7.4: https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=project%20in%20(HDFS%2C%20MAPREDUCE%2C%20HADOOP%2C%20YARN)%20AND%20priority%20in%20(Blocker%2C%20Critica

Re: Apache Hadoop 2.8.2 Release Plan

t; Thanks, > > Junping > > [1] 2.8.2 release Blockers/Criticals: https://s.apache.org/JM5x > [2] 2.8 Release wiki: > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/HADOOP/Hadoop+2.8+Release > > > From: Vinod Kumar Vavilapalli &g

Re: Branch merges and 3.0.0-beta1 scope

Andrew, Each of the branches below have been created more than a year ago (!) and have been consistently worked upon and are now finally seeing the light of the day. When they are "few weeks” away, pushing them out by 7 *more* months just doesn’t make sense. While I deeply appreciate the push

Re: Branch merges and 3.0.0-beta1 scope

Steve, You can be strict & ruthless about the timelines. Anything that doesn’t get in by mid-September, as was originally planned, can move to the next release - whether it is feature work on branches or feature work on trunk. The problem I see here is that code & branches being worked on for a

Re: [VOTE] Merge feature branch YARN-5355 (Timeline Service v2) to trunk

re are a total of 82 subtasks that were completed as part of this effort. > > We paid close attention to ensure that once disabled Timeline Service v.2 > does not impact existing functionality when disabled (by default). > > Special thanks to a team of folks who worked hard and contr

Re: Branch merges and 3.0.0-beta1 scope

Agreed. I was very clearly not advocating for rushing in features. If you have followed my past emails, I have only strongly advocated features be worked in branches and get merged when they are in a reasonable state. Each branch contributor group should look at their readiness and merge stuff i

Re: Branch merges and 3.0.0-beta1 scope

> 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 freeze and > weeks of code freeze. It is no knock on any developer or any feat

Re: [DISCUSS] Branches and versions for Hadoop 3

+1 to Andrew’s proposal for 3.x releases. We had fairly elaborate threads on this branching & compatibility topic before. One of them’s here: [1] +1 to what Jason said. (a) Incompatible changes are not to be treated lightly. We need to stop breaking stuff and ‘just dump it on trunk'. (b) Maj

Re: [DISCUSS] Looking to Apache Hadoop 3.1 release

Thanks for starting this thread, Wangda! +1 for establishing a faster cadence now itself. One word of caution though. The same I expressed while we were trying to do both 2.8 and 3.0 releases at the same time. Please try avoiding concurrent releases and splitting community bandwidth - it's not

Re: [DISCUSSION] Merging HDFS-7240 Object Store (Ozone) to trunk

> At a minimum, it should at least be using it’s own maven module for a > lot of the bits that generates it’s own maven jars so that we can split this > functionality up at build/test time. I expected this to be the case, but looks like it isn't. There's lot of value in splitting the HDF

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Hadoop 2.9.0 (RC0)

Arun / Subru, Thanks for the great work! Few quick comments - Can you cleanup the RC folder to only have tar.gz and src.tar.gz and their signatures and delete everything else? So that it's easy to pick up the important bits for the voters. For e.g, like this http://people.apache.org/~vinodkv/

[DISCUSS] A final minor release off branch-2?

Hi all, With 3.0.0 GA around the corner (tx for the push, Andrew!), 2.9.0 RC out (tx Arun / Subru!) and 2.8.2 (tx Junping!), I think it's high time we have a discussion on how we manage our developmental bandwidth between 2.x line and 3.x lines. Once 3.0 GA goes out, we will have two parallel

Re: [VOTE] Merge yarn-native-services branch into trunk

and have no impact on existing system if disabled. > > Special thanks to a team of folks who worked hard towards this: Billie > Rinaldi, Gour Saha, Vinod Kumar Vavilapalli, Jonathan Maron, Rohith Sharma K > S, Sunil G, Akhil PB, Eric Yang. This effort could not be possible without >

Re: [DISCUSS] A final minor release off branch-2?

Use the opportunity to clean up deprecated API ? >> * Do we even want to consider a separate bridging release for 2.7, 2.8 an >> 2.9 lines ? >> >> Cheers >> -Arun >> >> On Fri, Nov 3, 2017 at 5:07 PM, Vinod Kumar Vavilapalli < >> vino...@apac

Re: [DISCUSS] A final minor release off branch-2?

e. I'd like option C), and suggest we focus on the recent > releases. Answering this question is also one of the goals of my starting this thread. Collectively we need to conclude if we are okay or not okay with no longer putting any new feature work in general on the 2.x line after 2.9

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Hadoop 2.9.0 (RC0)

A related point - I thought I mentioned this in one of the release preparation threads, but in any case. Starting 2.7.0, for every .0 release, we've been adding a disclaimer (to the voting thread as well as the final release) that the first release can potentially go through additional fixes to

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Hadoop 3.0.0 RC0

I'd definitely extend it for a few more days. I only see 3 binding +1s so far - not a great number to brag about on our first major release in years. Also going to nudge folks into voting. +Vinod > On Nov 17, 2017, at 3:26 PM, Andrew Wang wrote: > > Hi Arpit, > > I agree the timing is not gr

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Hadoop 3.0.0 RC0

Quick question. I used to be able (in 2.x line) to create dist tarballs (mvn clean install -Pdist -Dtar -DskipTests -Dmaven.javadoc.skip=true) from the source being voted on (hadoop-3.0.0-src.tar.gz). The idea is to install HDFS, YARN, MR separately in separate root-directories from the genera

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Hadoop 3.0.0 RC0

> 1.8.0_151 > Maybe it would be a good idea to name a list of JDKs that are known to be > buggy. Can we get this documented somewhere? I don't consider it a blocker > so a release note in a later release or a wiki entry should be good enough. > > On Mon, Nov 20, 2017 at 12

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Hadoop 3.0.0 RC0

Thanks for all the push, Andrew! Looking at the RC. Went through my usual check-list. Here's my summary. Will cast my final vote after comparing and validating my findings with others. Verification - [Check] Successful recompilation from source tar-ball - [Check] Signature verification - [Ch

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Hadoop 3.0.0 RC0

>> - One decommissioned node in YARN ResourceManager UI always appears to >> start with, even when there are no NodeManagers that are started yet: >> Info :-1, DECOMMISSIONED, null rack. It shows up only in the UI though, >> not in the CLI node -list >> > > Is this a blocker? Could we get a JIRA?

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Hadoop 3.0.0 RC0

>>> - Cannot enable new UI in YARN because it is under a non-default >>> compilation flag. It should be on by default. >>> >> >> The yarn-ui profile has always been off by default, AFAIK. It's documented >> to turn it on in BUILDING.txt for release builds, and we do it in >> create-release. >> >

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Hadoop 3.0.0 RC0

>> - $HADOOP_YARN_HOME/sbin/yarn-daemon.sh start historyserver doesn't even >> work. Not just deprecated in favor of timelineserver as was advertised. > > This works for me in trunk and the bash code doesn’t appear to have > changed in a very long time. Probably something local to your in

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Hadoop 2.9.0 (RC0)

nd those tradeoffs, since they depend on internal details of > Hadoop. > > On Wed, Nov 8, 2017 at 5:34 PM, Vinod Kumar Vavilapalli > mailto:vino...@apache.org>> wrote: >> When we tried option (b), we used to make .0 as a GA release, but downstream >> projects like T

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Hadoop 3.0.0 RC1

I couldn't find the release tag for RC1 either - is it just me or has the release-process changed? +Vinod > On Dec 10, 2017, at 4:31 PM, Sangjin Lee wrote: > > Hi Andrew, > > Thanks much for your effort! Just to be clear, could you please state the > git commit id of the RC1 we're voting for?

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Hadoop 3.0.0 RC1

Looked at RC1. Went through my usual check-list. Here's my summary. +1 (binding) overall Verification - [Check] Successful recompilation from source tar-ball - [Check] Signature verification - [Check] Generating dist tarballs from source tar-ball - [Check] Validating the layout of the binary tar-

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Hadoop 3.0.0 RC1

I was waiting for Daniel to post the minutes from YARN meetup to talk about this. Anyways, in that discussion, we identified a bunch of key upgrade related scenarios that no-one seems to have validated - atleast from the representation in the YARN meetup. I'm going to create a wiki-page listing

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Hadoop 3.0.0 RC1

Good stuff Andrew, and thanks everyone! +Vinod > On Dec 13, 2017, at 1:05 PM, Andrew Wang wrote: > > To close this out, the vote passes successfully with 13 binding +1s, 5 > non-binding +1s, and no -1s. Thanks everyone for voting! I'll work on staging. >

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Hadoop 3.0.0 RC1

Yes, JIRAs will be filed, the wiki-page idea from YARN meetup is to record all combinations of testing that need to be done and correspondingly capture all the testing that someone in the community has already done and record it for future perusal. From what you are saying, I guess we haven't a

Re: [EVENT] HDFS Bug Bash: March 12

Was out of country and away from email for weeks. We have been using this in the past: https://www.meetup.com/Hadoop-Contributors/ . I believe this doesn't have the per-meetup-charge issue, but will double check. Let me know if there are more meetup

Re: About reset branch-3.1 to trunk before release.

I see one new feature: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/YARN-7626: Allow regular expression matching in container-executor.cfg for devices and named docker volumes mount. There are 21 sub-tasks. There are three feature-type JIRAs in those - https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/YARN-7972,

Re: About reset branch-3.1 to trunk before release.

>>>> >>>>> Thanks for sharing your thoughts. >>>>> >>>>> We have done build and single node cluster deploy / test for the >> latest >>>>> trunk code (commit: 49c747ab187d0650143205ba57ca19607ec4c6bd). >> Since >&

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Hadoop 3.1.0 (RC1)

<mailto:hdfs-...@hadoop.apache.org>>, Hadoop Common > mailto:common-...@hadoop.apache.org>>, > "mapreduce-dev@hadoop.apache.org <mailto:mapreduce-dev@hadoop.apache.org>" > mailto:mapreduce-dev@hadoop.apache.org>>, > Vinod Kumar Vavilapalli mail

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Hadoop 3.1.0 (RC1)

come from our release process. > > Thanks, > Wangda > > [1] Maven jars are downloaded from > https://repository.apache.org/service/local/repositories/releases/content/org/apache/hadoop/hadoop-yarn-api/ > /hadoop-yarn-api-.jar > [2] Binary tarballs downloaded from http://apache.

Re: [VOTE] reset/force push to clean up inadvertent merge commit pushed to trunk

I will add that the branch also successfully compiles. Let's just move forward as is, unblock commits and just fix things if anything is broken. +Vinod > On Jul 6, 2018, at 10:30 AM, Anu Engineer wrote: > > Hi All, > > [ Thanks to Arpit for working offline and verifying that branch is indeed

Re: [VOTE] reset/force push to clean up inadvertent merge commit pushed to trunk

, YARN-7556, YARN-7451 >> are not anymore in trunk due to the revert. >> >> Haibo/Robert if you can recommit your patches I will commit mine >> subsequently to preserve the original order. >> >> (My apology for the mess I did with the merge commit) >

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Hadoop 3.0.3 (RC0)

Yongjun, Looks like you didn't add the links to 3.0.3 binary release on the http://hadoop.apache.org/releases.html page. I just did it, FYI: https://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=revision&revision=1837967 Thanks +Vinod > On May 31,

Re: HADOOP-14163 proposal for new hadoop.apache.org

(for example new >> release announcements could be generated as part of the release process) >> I think it's very low risk to try out a new approach for the site (and easy >> to rollback in case of problems) >> Marton >> ps: I just updated the patch/preview site

Re: [ANNOUNCE] Apache Hadoop Ozone 0.2.1-alpha release

Congratulations on the release! Just seeing this, why is this its own website with its own downloads section, look & feel etc instead of being part of our larger site? +Vinod > On Oct 1, 2018, at 5:24 PM, Elek, Marton wrote: > > > It gives me great pleasure to announce that the Apache Hado

Re: Apache Hadoop 3.1.2 release plan

231 fixed JIRAs is already quite a bunch! I only see 7 JIRAs marked with Affects Version 3.1.2 and only one of them as blocker. Why not just release now as soon as there are no blockers? Thanks +Vinod > On Oct 24, 2018, at 4:36 PM, Wangda Tan wrote: > > Hi, All > > We have released Apache H

Re: [DISCUSS] Move to gitbox

We need to write up the stages of the process and put a concrete timeline first. Is it an atomic move? Or will both repos live at the same time? Do we need a stop-the-world period and messaging sent out? When do the git-wip repos get deleted and/or stop getting updates? Things I can think of th

Re: [Result] [VOTE] Merge HDFS-12943 branch to trunk - Consistent Reads from Standby

Agree, it isn't productive this way. I can't seem to find it, but was there a DISCUSS thread for this branch-merge? I usually recommend addressing issues on a DISCUSS thread instead of fighting things over a VOTE. +Vinod > On Dec 13, 2018, at 10:09 AM, Konstantin Shvachko > wrote: > > This

Re: Task Counters

When you say "counters updated by AM", do you mean (a) the Job Counters or (b) counters written by a custom AM that extends MR AM? If it's (a), the only way is for the Task to use JobClient API to get those counters. For this to work in secure clusters, you will have to get YARN RM delegation-

Fwd: Incorrect NOTICE files in TLP releases

A bit of an old email, but want to make sure this isn't missed. Has anyone looked into this concern? Ref https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ROL-2138 . Thanks +Vinod > Begin forwarded message: > > From: sebb > Subject: Incorrect NOTICE files

Re: [VOTE] Force "squash and merge" option for PR merge on github UI

Makes sense, +1. Thanks +Vinod > On Jul 17, 2019, at 11:37 AM, Elek, Marton wrote: > > Hi, > > Github UI (ui!) helps to merge Pull Requests to the proposed branch. > There are three different ways to do it [1]: > > 1. Keep all the different commits from the PR branch and create one > addition

Re: [DISCUSS] Prefer JUnit5 for new tests

+1 if it is indeed possible to have both. Thanks +Vinod > On Jul 26, 2019, at 1:56 PM, Akira Ajisaka wrote: > > Hi folks, > > Now we are slowly migrating from JUnit4 to JUnit5. > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HADOOP-14693 > > However, as Steve commented [1], if we are going to migrate

Re: Any thoughts making Submarine a separate Apache project?

Looks like there's a meaningful push behind this. Given the desire is to fork off Apache Hadoop, you'd want to make sure this enthusiasm turns into building a real, independent but more importantly a sustainable community. Given that there were two official releases off the Apache Hadoop projec

Re: [DISCUSS] Separate Hadoop Core trunk and Hadoop Ozone trunk source tree

Looks to me that the advantages of this additional step are only incremental given that you've already decoupled releases and dependencies. Do you see a Submarine like split-also-into-a-TLP for Ozone? If not now, sometime further down the line? If so, why not do both at the same time? I felt th

Re: [ANNOUNCE] Apache Hadoop 3.2.1 release

Done: https://twitter.com/hadoop/status/1176787511865008128. If you have tweetdeck, any of the PMC members can do this. BTW, it looks we haven't published any releases since Nov 2018. Let's get back to doing this going forward! Thanks +Vinod > On Sep 25, 2019, at 2:44 PM, Rohith Sharma K S >

Re: Does VOTE necessary to create a child repo?

Moving the thread to the dev lists. Thanks +Vinod > On Sep 23, 2019, at 11:43 PM, Vinayakumar B wrote: > > Thanks Marton, > > Current created 'hadoop-thirdparty' repo is empty right now. > Whether to use that repo for shaded artifact or not will be monitored in > HADOOP-13363 umbrella jira. P

Re: VOTE PASSED - Hadoop-3.1.3-RC0 Re: [VOTE] Release Hadoop-3.1.3-RC0

Zhankun et.al, Did we close down the rest of the release process for 3.1.3? I don't yet see this on the site, so asking. If it's not done yet and you are running into issues, please let me know and I can help with the corresponding release management tasks. Thanks +Vinod On Tue, Sep 24, 2019 a

Re: [DISCUSS] Separate Hadoop Core trunk and Hadoop Ozone trunk source tree [discussion -> lazy vote]

On Mon, Sep 23, 2019 at 4:02 PM Elek, Marton wrote: > As the overall feedback was positive (in fact many of the answers were > simple +1 votes) I don't think the thread should be repeated under > [VOTE] subject. Therefore I call it for a lazy consensus. > Let's please not do this in the future.

Re: 2.7 status

Progress has been really slow, but now we are down to four blockers across the board. I plan to roll an RC this weekend. Thanks, +Vinod On Mar 8, 2015, at 8:40 PM, Vinod Kumar Vavilapalli wrote: > 2.7 branch created and branch-2 updated to point to 2.8-SNAPSHOT. > > Committer

Re: 2.7 status

gt; > On Wed, Mar 25, 2015 at 9:53 AM, Vinod Kumar Vavilapalli < > vino...@hortonworks.com> wrote: > >> Progress has been really slow, but now we are down to four blockers across >> the board. >> >> I plan to roll an RC this weekend. >> >> Than

Re: IMPORTANT: automatic changelog creation

We'd then doing two commits for every patch. Let's simply not remove CHANGES.txt from trunk, keep the existing dev workflow, but doc the release process to remove CHANGES.txt in trunk at the time of a release going out of trunk. +Vinod On Apr 2, 2015, at 10:12 AM, Allen Wittenauer mailto:a..

[VOTE] Release Apache Hadoop 2.7.0 RC0

Hi all, I've created a release candidate RC0 for Apache Hadoop 2.7.0. The RC is available at: http://people.apache.org/~vinodkv/hadoop-2.7.0-RC0/ The RC tag in git is: release-2.7.0-RC0 The maven artifacts are available via repository.apache.org at https://repository.apache.org/content/reposi

Re: 2.7 status

Seems like they are already in, nothing more to do here.. +Vinod On Apr 1, 2015, at 7:45 PM, Zhijie Shen wrote: > Can we include YARN-3273 into 2.7? YARN-3430 needs it to fix the RM web UI > bug. > > Thanks, > Zhijie > ________ > From: Vi

Re: 2.7 status

A couple of weeks late, but we are here. There is one last blocker that I am about to commit in a little while. I am starting the release process. +Vinod On Mar 25, 2015, at 9:53 AM, Vinod Kumar Vavilapalli wrote: > Progress has been really slow, but now we are down to four blockers acr

A 2.7.1 release to follow up 2.7.0

Hi all, I feel like we haven't done a great job of maintaining the previous 2.x releases. Seeing as how long 2.7.0 release has taken, I am sure we will spend more time stabilizing it, fixing issues etc. I propose that we immediately follow up 2.7.0 with a 2.7.1 within 2-3 weeks. The focus obvious

Re: 2.7 status

sues.apache.org/jira/browse/HDFS-6826 incomplete.. > > Cheers > -Arun Suresh > > On Thu, Apr 9, 2015 at 11:37 AM, Vinod Kumar Vavilapalli < > vino...@hortonworks.com> wrote: > >> A couple of weeks late, but we are here. >> >> There is one last blocker

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Hadoop 2.7.0 RC0

well against current 2.6.0. > Thanks. > > patw > > > ----- Forwarded Message - From: Vinod Kumar Vavilapalli > > To: common-...@hadoop.apache.org; hdfs-...@hadoop.apache.org; > yarn-...@hadoop.apache.org; mapreduce-dev@hadoop.apache.org > Cc: vino...@apa

[RESULT][VOTE] Release Apache Hadoop 2.7.0 RC0

With 22 +1s (7 binding), one +0 and no -1s the vote passes. Thanks for everyone who tried the release and voted. I'll push the bits and send out an announcement. Thanks +Vinod On Apr 10, 2015, at 4:44 PM, Vinod Kumar Vavilapalli wrote: > Hi all, > > I've created a releas

[DISCUSS] Looking to a 2.8.0 release

With 2.7.0 out of the way, and with more maintenance releases to stabilize it, I propose we start thinking about 2.8.0. Here's my first cut of the proposal, will update the Roadmap wiki. - Support *both* JDK7 and JDK8 runtimes: HADOOP-11090 - Compatibility tools to catch backwards, forwards comp

Re: [DISCUSS] Looking to a 2.8.0 release

a new minor release, and start stabilizing as soon as those are in? On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 2:39 PM, Vinod Kumar Vavilapalli mailto:vino...@apache.org>> wrote: With 2.7.0 out of the way, and with more maintenance releases to stabilize it, I propose we start thinking about 2.8.0. Here

Re: [DISCUSS] Looking to a 2.8.0 release

justify a >> new minor release, and start stabilizing as soon as those are in? >> >> On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 2:39 PM, Vinod Kumar Vavilapalli < >> vino...@apache.org >>> wrote: >> >>> With 2.7.0 out of the way, and with more maintenance releases to

Re: Set minimum version of Hadoop 3 to JDK 8

We don't want JDK 8 only code going into branch-2 line. Moving Jenkins to 1.8 right-away will shield such code, how do we address that? Thanks, +Vinod On Apr 21, 2015, at 5:54 PM, Robert Kanter wrote: > Sure, I'll try to change the Jenkins builds to 1.8 first. > > On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 3:31

Re: IMPORTANT: testing patches for branches

Does this mean HADOOP-7435 is no longer needed / closeable as dup? Thanks +Vinod On Apr 22, 2015, at 12:34 PM, Allen Wittenauer wrote: > > Hey gang, > > Just so everyone is aware, if you are working on a patch for either a > feature branch or a major branch, if you name the patc

Re: [DISCUSS] Looking to a 2.8.0 release

udes in next release? > > Thanks & Regards > Rohith Sharma K S > > -Original Message- > From: Vinod Kumar Vavilapalli [mailto:vino...@apache.org] > Sent: 22 April 2015 03:09 > To: common-...@hadoop.apache.org; yarn-...@hadoop.apache.org; > hdfs-...@hadoop.apach

[DISCUSS] Release numbering for stable 2.8 and beyond

/ogzk4phj6wsdpssu On Apr 21, 2015, at 4:59 PM, Vinod Kumar Vavilapalli wrote: > > Sure, I agree it's better to have clear guidelines and scheme. Let me fork > this thread about that. > > Re 2.7.0, I just forgot about the naming initially though I was clear in the > discussion/

Re: [RESULT][VOTE] Release Apache Hadoop 2.7.0 RC0

It took a while for the artifact distribution to come around, I initially had trouble pushing them from home too. Anyways, I just updated the website too. Sending an announcement now.. Thanks, +Vinod On Apr 20, 2015, at 8:06 PM, Vinod Kumar Vavilapalli wrote: > With 22 +1s (7 binding),

2.7.1 status

As we talked before [1], I am going to start the push for 2.7.1 [2]. Here are the things I am going to do, with help from others in the community - Review current 2.7.1 content to make sure only bug fixes went in - Review 2.8 to see if any important bug fixes didn't get merged into 2.7.1 - Send

Planning Hadoop 2.6.1 release

There were several requests on the user lists [1] for a 2.6.1 release. I got many offline comments too. Planning to do a 2.6.1 release in a few weeks time. We already have a bunch of tickets committed to 2.7.1. I created a filter [2] to tracking pending tickets. We need to collectively come up wi

Re: Bug Bash Details/Registration: May 8th, 2015

Would definitely love to participate. I am thinking of spending some time this weekend to do one pass (as a preparation step) atleast in the YARN/MR projects. Will pull in others who have time. Thanks +Vinod On Apr 25, 2015, at 4:02 PM, Allen Wittenauer wrote: > (Reply-to set to common-dev@)

Re: 2.7.1 status

over this and next week. Has anyone else done any testing on 2.7.0? If so, please update here of your findings. Hoping to get a release candidate out next week. Thanks +Vinod On Apr 23, 2015, at 11:58 AM, Vinod Kumar Vavilapalli mailto:vino...@apache.org>> wrote: As we talked before [1

Re: 2.7.1 status

Tx for reporting this, Elliot. Made it a blocker, not with a deeper understanding of the problem. Can you please chime in with your opinion and perhaps code reviews? Thanks +Vinod On May 26, 2015, at 10:48 AM, Elliott Clark wrote: > HADOOP-12001 should probably be added to the blocker list si

Re: 2.7.1 status

pache.org/jira/browse/HADOOP-11934 should >> also >> be added to the blocker list. >> This is a critical bug in our ability to protect the LDAP connection >> password in LdapGroupsMapper. >> >> thanks! >> >> --larry >> >> On Tue, May 26, 20

Re: 2.7.1 status

HADOOP-11628 >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/YARN-3585 >> >> As per the discussion with some of the members, YARN-3558 seems like not a >> regression bug. >> >> Looking forward to get these fixed in 2.7.1 >> >> >> Regards >>

  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   >