I have reduced the priority for YARN-5742 as we have work around. Also, I
have removed target version since we do not have plans to handle this in
coming releases.
-Rohith Sharma K S
On 8 February 2018 at 22:30, Lei Xu wrote:
> Hi, Brahma
>
> Thanks for reminder. YARN-5742 does not look like a
Hi, Brahma
Thanks for reminder. YARN-5742 does not look like a blocker to me. I
will create a RC right after HADOOP-14060.
On Thu, Feb 8, 2018 at 7:35 AM, Kihwal Lee wrote:
> HADOOP-14060 is a blocker. Daryn will add more detail to the jira or to
> this thread.
>
> On Thu, Feb 8, 2018 at 7:01 A
HADOOP-14060 is a blocker. Daryn will add more detail to the jira or to
this thread.
On Thu, Feb 8, 2018 at 7:01 AM, Brahma Reddy Battula
wrote:
> Hi Eddy,
>
> HDFS-12990 got committed to 3.0.1,can we have RC for 3.0.1 (only YARN-5742
> blocker is open ) ?
>
>
> On Sat, Feb 3, 2018 at 12:40 A
Hi Eddy,
HDFS-12990 got committed to 3.0.1,can we have RC for 3.0.1 (only YARN-5742
blocker is open ) ?
On Sat, Feb 3, 2018 at 12:40 AM, Chris Douglas wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 2, 2018 at 10:22 AM, Arpit Agarwal
> wrote:
> > Do you plan to roll an RC with an uncommitted fix? That isn't the right
On Fri, Feb 2, 2018 at 10:22 AM, Arpit Agarwal wrote:
> Do you plan to roll an RC with an uncommitted fix? That isn't the right
> approach.
The fix will be committed to the release branch. We'll vote on the
release, and if it receives a majority of +1 votes then it becomes
3.0.1. That's how the
Hi Aaron/Lei,
Do you plan to roll an RC with an uncommitted fix? That isn't the right
approach.
This issue has good visibility and enough discussion. If there is a binding
veto in effect then the change must be abandoned. Else you should be able to
proceed with committing. However, 3.0.0 must
Sounds good to me, ATM.
On Thu, Feb 1, 2018 at 2:34 PM, Aaron T. Myers wrote:
> Hey Anu,
>
> My feeling on HDFS-12990 is that we've discussed it quite a bit already and
> it doesn't seem at this point like either side is going to budge. I'm
> certainly happy to have a phone call about it, but I d
Hey Anu,
My feeling on HDFS-12990 is that we've discussed it quite a bit already and
it doesn't seem at this point like either side is going to budge. I'm
certainly happy to have a phone call about it, but I don't expect that we'd
make much progress.
My suggestion is that we simply include the pa
+Xiao
My understanding is that we will have this for 3.0.1. Xiao, could
you give your inputs here?
On Thu, Feb 1, 2018 at 11:55 AM, Anu Engineer wrote:
> Hi Eddy,
>
> Thanks for driving this release. Just a quick question, do we have time to
> close this issue?
> https://issues.apache.org/jir
Hi Eddy,
Thanks for driving this release. Just a quick question, do we have time to
close this issue?
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HDFS-12990
or are we abandoning it? I believe that this is the last window for us to fix
this issue.
Should we have a call and get this resolved one way
Hi, All
I just cut branch-3.0.1 from branch-3.0. Please make sure all patches
targeted to 3.0.1 being checked in both branch-3.0 and branch-3.0.1.
Thanks!
Eddy
On Tue, Jan 9, 2018 at 11:17 AM, Lei Xu wrote:
> Hi, All
>
> We have released Apache Hadoop 3.0.0 in December [1]. To further
> improv
Hi, Andrew and Jason
Thanks for the feedback!
I will follow the pattern and cut the branch on Feb 1st and start the
RC vote around Feb 5th then.
Best
On Tue, Jan 9, 2018 at 11:35 AM, Jason Lowe wrote:
> Is it necessary to cut the branch so far ahead of the release? branch-3.0
> is already a m
Hi, Andrew and Jason
Thanks for the feedback!
I will follow the pattern and cut the branch on Feb 1st and start the
RC vote around Feb 5th then.
Best
On Tue, Jan 9, 2018 at 11:35 AM, Jason Lowe wrote:
> Is it necessary to cut the branch so far ahead of the release? branch-3.0
> is already a m
Is it necessary to cut the branch so far ahead of the release? branch-3.0
is already a maintenance line for 3.0.x releases. Is there a known
feature/improvement planned to go into branch-3.0 that is not desirable for
the 3.0.1 release?
I have found in the past that branching so early leads to ma
Hi Eddy, thanks for taking this on,
Historically we've waited for the first RC to cut the release branch since
it keeps things simpler for committers.
Also, could you check the permissions on your JIRA filter? It shows as
private for me.
Best,
Andrew
On Tue, Jan 9, 2018 at 11:17 AM, Lei Xu wro
15 matches
Mail list logo
