Home | About | Sematext search-lucene.com search-hadoop.com
 Search Hadoop and all its subprojects:

Switch to Threaded View
Hadoop, mail # dev - [ANNOUNCE] Intend to build a 0.20.205.1 candidate next Friday 11 Nov.


Copy link to this message
-
Re: [ANNOUNCE] Intend to build a 0.20.205.1 candidate next Friday 11 Nov.
Matt Foley 2011-11-23, 22:56
I really want this in 0.20.205.1, which will be Hadoop 1.0.0, because of
its importance for
good support of HBase.

Jitendra, please merge it to branch-0.20-security-205.

--Matt (wearing my Apache release manager hat)
On Wed, Nov 23, 2011 at 11:14 AM, Suresh Srinivas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:

> +1 for Jitendra's proposal.
>
> Additionally, most of the core of the code that this patch is based on has
> been tested and deployed in clusters at TrendMicro and Facebook.
>
> On Wed, Nov 23, 2011 at 11:10 AM, Jitendra Pandey
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
>
> > The trunk, 206 patches for HDFS-2246 have been committed. I think it
> makes
> > sense to commit it to 205.1 as well for following reasons (most of it has
> > already been mentioned)
> > a) We intended this patch for 205, but couldn't finish in time. Now that
> > 205.1 branch is still not cut, we could get this in.
> > b) This is not a very risky change. Most of it is new code and will be
> > disabled by default the feature will be disabled.
> > c) The performance benefits are very good, as reported by Todd on the
> jira.
> > Hbase installations will significantly benefit from it.
> >
> > On Mon, Nov 14, 2011 at 1:44 PM, Todd Lipcon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 2:29 PM, Todd Lipcon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> > > > On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 1:29 AM, Matt Foley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > >>
> > > >> Also, I believe in the HDFS-2246 Jira, Todd requested extra time to
> > > review,
> > > >> due to commitments at Hadoop World.  Todd, would Monday be
> sufficient
> > > extra
> > > >> time, so as not to slow down the anticipated release schedule too
> > much?
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > > Yes, I will probably have time to review it by Monday. But the
> > > > review-time concern is separate from the concern about which version
> > > > this should go into.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Reviewing this now... though I still think it shoudl target 0.20.206,
> > > not 0.20.205.1.
> > >
> > > -Todd
> > >
> > > >
> > > >>
> > > >> On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 10:31 PM, Eli Collins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >>> Hey guys,
> > > >>>
> > > >>> HDFS-2246 is not a fix, it's a non-trivial performance
> optimization.
> > > >>> The roadmap page is pretty clear..  "Point releases are made to fix
> > > >>> critical bugs. They do not introduce new features or make other
> > > >>> improvements other than fixing bugs".
> > > >>>
> > > >>> I'm not opposed to the change, I'm just pointing out that we agreed
> > to
> > > >>> develop trunk first, and we agreed to follow the release policies
> for
> > > >>> the sustaining branch. I don't see why we can't honor those
> > > >>> agreements, ie why not post a patch for trunk first and then
> backport
> > > >>> it to 206? Reasonable?
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Thanks,
> > > >>> Eli
> > > >>>
> > > >>> On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 9:58 PM, Suresh Srinivas <
> > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > >>> wrote:
> > > >>> > Eli,
> > > >>> >
> > > >>> > As Jitendra indicated in the jira, this was originally supposed
> to
> > be
> > > >>> part
> > > >>> > of 0.205. Due to time crunc, we could not get this done in 0.205.
> > > This
> > > >>> can
> > > >>> > be turned off by a flag and only can be enabled by users who want
> > to
> > > use
> > > >>> > the functionality. Given that, I feel it is okay to go into
> > 0.205.1.
> > > >>> >
> > > >>> > I agree it would be good to have a trunk patch for this and make
> it
> > > part
> > > >>> of
> > > >>> > 0.23.
> > > >>> >
> > > >>> > Regards,
> > > >>> > Suresh
> > > >>> >
> > > >>> > On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 4:32 PM, Eli Collins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > wrote:
> > > >>> >
> > > >>> >> Hey Matt,
> > > >>> >>
> > > >>> >> Is HDFS-2246 slated for 0.20.205.1?  Given that it's not a bug
> and
> > > is
> > > >>> >> non-trivial it seems better suited for 206 than a point release.
> > > Also,
> > > >>> >> per the sustaining roadmap -
> > http://wiki.apache.org/hadoop/Roadmap-
> > >