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

Switch to Threaded View
Hadoop, mail # general - [VOTE] Release hadoop-2.0.0-alpha


Copy link to this message
-
Re: [VOTE] Release hadoop-2.0.0-alpha
Tsz Wo Sze 2012-05-14, 18:07
Let me merge HADOOP-8285 and HADOOP-8366.  Thanks.
Tsz-Wo

----- Original Message -----
From: Uma Maheswara Rao G <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc:
Sent: Monday, May 14, 2012 10:56 AM
Subject: RE: [VOTE] Release hadoop-2.0.0-alpha

> a) Revert HDFS-3157 and commit HADOOP-8285 and HADOOP-8366 on
> branch-2.0.0-alpha, so these are the only changes since rc0. Roll a
> new rc1 from here.
I have merged HDFS-3157 revert.
Do you mind taking a look at HADOOP-8285 and HADOOP-8366?

Thanks,
Uma
________________________________________
From: Arun C Murthy [[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, May 14, 2012 10:24 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [VOTE] Release hadoop-2.0.0-alpha

Todd,

Please go ahead and merge changes into branch-2.0.0-alpha and I'll roll RC1.

thanks,
Arun

On May 12, 2012, at 10:05 PM, Todd Lipcon wrote:

> Looking at the release tag vs the current state of branch-2, I have
> two concerns from the point of view of HDFS:
>
> 1) We reverted HDFS-3157 in branch-2 because it sends deletions for
> corrupt replicas without properly going through the "corrupt block"
> path. We saw this cause data loss in TestPipelinesFailover. So, I'm
> nervous about putting it in a release, even labeled as alpha.
>
> 2) HADOOP-8285 and HADOOP-8366 changed the wire format for the RPC
> envelope in branch-2, but didn't make it into this rc. So, that would
> mean that future alphas would not be protocol-compatible with this
> alpha. Per a discussion a few weeks ago, I think we all were in
> agreement that, if possible, we'd like all 2.x to be compatible for
> client-server communication, at least (even if we don't support
> cross-version for the intra-cluster protocols)
>
> Do other folks think it's worth rolling an rc1? I would propose either:
> a) Revert HDFS-3157 and commit HADOOP-8285 and HADOOP-8366 on
> branch-2.0.0-alpha, so these are the only changes since rc0. Roll a
> new rc1 from here.
> or:
> b) Discard the current branch-2.0.0-alpha and re-branch from the
> current state of branch-2.
>
> -Todd
>
> On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 7:19 PM, Eli Collins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> +1  I installed the build on a 6 node cluster and kicked the tires,
>> didn't find any blocking issues.
>>
>> Btw in the future better to build from the svn repo so the revision is
>> an svn rev from the release branch. Eg 1336254 instead of 40e90d3c7
>> which is from the git mirror, this way we're consistent across
>> releases.
>>
>> hadoop-2.0.0-alpha $ ./bin/hadoop version
>> Hadoop 2.0.0-alpha
>> Subversion git://devadm900.cc1.ygridcore.net/grid/0/dev/acm/hadoop-trunk/hadoop-common-project/hadoop-common
>> -r 40e90d3c7e5d71aedcdc2d9cc55d078e78944c55
>> Compiled by hortonmu on Wed May  9 16:19:55 UTC 2012
>> From source with checksum 3d9a13a31ef3a9ab4b5cba1f982ab888
>>
>>
>> On Wed, May 9, 2012 at 9:58 AM, Arun C Murthy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> I've created a release candidate for hadoop-2.0.0-alpha that I would like to release.
>>>
>>> It is available at: http://people.apache.org/~acmurthy/hadoop-2.0.0-alpha-rc0/
>>>
>>> The maven artifacts are available via repository.apache.org.
>>>
>>> Please try the release and vote; the vote will run for the usual 7 days.
>>>
>>> This is a big milestone for the Apache Hadoop community - congratulations and thanks for all the contributions!
>>>
>>> thanks,
>>> Arun
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Arun C. Murthy
>>> Hortonworks Inc.
>>> http://hortonworks.com/
>>>
>>>
>
>
>
> --
> Todd Lipcon
> Software Engineer, Cloudera

--
Arun C. Murthy
Hortonworks Inc.
http://hortonworks.com/